this makes it harder for their competitors to index the files in their search engines. I forget the specific technical details, but google's push for HTTPS has nothing to do with privacy and security (I mean, look at who we're talking about here, it's a company that exits to sell ads and your demographic data).
If anyone remembers the technical details feel free to chime in, but this is just an anti-competitive trick.
it's fine for the 16 year old with no credit. Give that kid a few years. The car his mom & dad helped him buy will break down and his two $8/hr jobs won't be enough to get it fixed. He won't know how to fix it himself because we pay for schools with property taxes and Auto Shop was one of the first things cut when the property values in his neighborhood collapsed and his school district lost all it's funding. Kid now has a high interest loan over his head and very little money. So his credit's shot. One of these days he overdraws his account and the bank uses that opportunity to close it out and send him packing since he's all cost and no profit. The divorce he has in his 20s (along with child support) means no bank will touch him. Doesn't help that the mom cleaned out his account right before the divorce
Once the world kicks down you it doesn't stop. Unless some outside force steps in you're pretty much done with. As for the illegals, they've got their own little world that still takes cash that they keep to. Everyone knows they're there but turns a blind eye because the local businesses want to hire them and the locals themselves want their lawns maintained and their houses renovated on the cheap. This has nothing to do with illegal immigration. We could stop that any time we want with stricter employer guidelines and by ending the drug war so the refugees would stop streaming in. But if we did that the right wing in America would lose yet another boogeyman to scare us with.
and lord knows I've done polls on this forum to ask if anyone was going to change their vote. But as part of a broader narrative that the GOP consistently ignores the Will of the People I think it will change votes.
See, this is the difference between the GOP and the Democrats. The GOP pushes their narratives and their policies relentlessly. They lost on Net Neutrality time and time again but they never stopped. Eventually random election cycles and a crap candidate put a pro-corporate Republican in the Whitehouse and now they've won. It'll take a sea change in American politics to get NN back. The Dems would have to take a super majority in the House, Senate and maybe even the presidency if it wasn't at least 70 (for a veto override).
That said, this is the Dems trying to get a message out. One that I'd argue is correct. The GOP really isn't your friend. They do what their donors do 100% of the time and ignore regular folk. We see that in the last tax bill, in the wars they keep us in, in their opposition to the ACA's pre-existing condition coverage and in pretty much everything they do. That point needs to be hammered home because there's a strong taboo about "partisanship" in this country. But as always facts don't care about our feelings and the facts are what the facts are, the GOP has been running against public opinion for decades now. Sure, there are right wing "Blue Dog" Dems who do the same, and the folks who spearheaded the NN vote are the same folks talking about primarying those Dems...
I'm saying there's something left to salvage in the Democratic party. I stopped thinking that way about the GOP ages ago.
It'll be killed by Mitch McConnell in the Senate. The Dems will then add it to the growing list of reasons to vote for them and not the GOP, which given that this is a partisan issue (voting is generally along party lines with one or two GOPers breaking ranks when they know it's safe to do so as it dies in the Senate) I don't think that's unfair.
The Problem is that when you cut programs for fighting domestic terror in a country where white supremacists account for a disproportionate amount of attacks and then say both sides are bad when literal Nazis are rallying, well...
There just comes a time to call a Spade a Spade. I don't care of Trump really drinks the Kool-Aid or is just doing it for the votes or even the lulz. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and hiel Hitler's like a duck, it's a White Nationalist. Sooner we stop living in denial the better. This will not end well for us otherwise. Ignoring reality never does...
someone who wants to form a whites only ethno-state. This is a thing that exists and is growing and therefore needs a name. What else would you call that? And how is it mangling the language?
It reminds me of one of my mainframe buds who couldn't wrap his head around the concept of metadata. "It's just data!". Well, no, it's not. It's data about data. "But that's just data". Yes, but it's a kind of data, and it became increasingly common and important to discuss so we made a term for it so that we could discuss it more clearly and succinctly.
Same thing here. I could say "Persons who advocate for a White Ethno-State" but if I'm going to be talking about them a lot "White Nationalist" is easier. Now, that I'm stuck talking about them a lot shows how bad things have gotten....
the real problem is we accepted oligarchy in exchange for some minor bigotry and a general fear of change. The bigots are actually a minor problem. Sure, getting rid of their bigotry would fix things (since they tip the scales) but the real problem is folks who see things like minimum wage hike not as paying a living wage but as too risky since it might raise the price of a pizza 75 cents... Nevermind that it's just restaurants that saw a hike or that the hikes are small enough that it's just as likely to be inflation...
Point is, too many Americans living paycheck to paycheck and in a constant state of fear of change means it's damn near impossible to get them to want to fix anything. Which is working exactly as intended...
they haven't passed one piece of workable legislation since the ACA. I mean, I wouldn't call that mess of a tax bill that _raised_ my taxes $50 bucks and resulted in more offshoring and job cuts (look it up, good 'ole unintended consequences) "workable".
private prisons are looked on fondly because they keep the riff-raff out of your neighborhood. Most people are on their parents insurance until they get a job, job funded insurance until they retire and Medicare (socialized medicine for old people who are otherwise uninsurable) after that. There's also a smattering of ex-military who get socialized medicine from our Veteran's Admin by virtue of having served and, well, a lot of them are big on IGMFY.... Free taxes is just one more check box. Why should _I_ pay for the poors to get money back?
It's counter productive. Recently the right wing Dems and GOP are attacking social security and Medicare (they want to means test it, which in America is a death sentence for any program) and have even started cutting the VA under Trump (who can somehow get away with saying and doing anything without taking a hit in the polls). It'll bite them in the ass eventually, but some of them will die before it happens. And in the meantime it just feels so damn good to kick down.
We call it stigginit. I used to think it was a bullshit concept made up by bitter left wingers, but I've seen way, way too much of it to think that anymore...
refuse to vote for politicians who take money from Super PACs and big money donors. I'm adding the latter qualifier as Beto O'Rouke seems to have used the $2700 limit and a lot of repeated small donations to make his fundraising hall look like Bernie Sanders' when it's looking more and more like he got a few thousand rich folk in a donation network to fund his campaign on the sly.
Either way it'll come out later this month when he's forced to declare the number of unique donors. You'll need to watch out for that stuff now, but opensecrets.org is your friend.
Bottom line, just don't vote for anyone who takes PAC money, and watch out for fake populists and this crap just ends. Your Trumps, Bidens, Pelosis, Paul Ryans, etc of the world can't win if they can't outspend real populists 10 to 1.
If not then McConnell has the right idea. This is a high value issue for his donors and a low value issue for his voters. He'll collect his paycheck from AT&T, Cox, etc and ignore the will of the people because it's not strong enough to change what happens at the ballot box.
A Strawman is a weak, unrelated and easily refuted argument brought up in a debate so that the debater can distract from a point he cannot address. Nixon's phony war on drugs is anything but.
It's not weak, because the fact that Nixon used the criminal justice system to attack his political opponents and disenfranchise them is very, very well documented. Nixon is only a single example of this trend in Republicans. Florida is famous for not giving back voting rights under GOP governorship. So much so their people passed a law overriding the governor (who by all account stole the last election using voter suppression tactics). Nixon is an example. He is specifically brought up because he is a strong example.
Next, His actions are related to the topic of granting voting rights to inmates and indeed to _all_ citizens. Nixon is an example of why we should NEVER take away voting rights. He specifically and intentionally misused drug policy to take away voting rights from left wing opposition. You might disagree with the left wing, and might even be willing to give Nixon a pass on what he did. I'm bluntly saying that is bad for you. That eventually they will come for you and your rights. This is what always happens throughout history. There is no amount of money and power that is ever enough. And folks like Nixon will look to take it away from you and your family. So yes, Nixon is definitely related to the disenfranchisement of criminals in that he did so for political means, and he is therefore not unrelated to the main point, and furthermore the fact that Nixon can disenfranchise one political group means he can do so to _any_ political group, which provides ample incentive for you to oppose _any_ disenfranchisement of _any_ citizen.
And as for easily refuted, it took several paragraphs to make my point and for you to read and comprehend it. Laying out the case for Nixon's actions being a direct subversion of democracy and following that logic to it's inevitable conclusion where disenfranchising undesirables fundamentally undermines democracy is a fair amount of work. The decades of "Tough on Crime" propaganda that you yourself are fighting against (as evidenced by the fact that you're still engaging me) show how hard it is. My hope is that by engaging with me and these ideas ("these ideas" because they're not mine, I'm not clever enough to figure this stuff out on my own, hence I seek wise console such as Bernie Sanders) that you'll overcome the propaganda and realize that Bernie's right, and that the right to vote is among the most vital and sacred we have.
if you can't control something as powerful as a government then you're not going to survive long. We already have tons of laws on the books written by and for private prisons to incarcerate minor offenders for longer and to make sure their lives are and stay hell so they're forced back into a revolving door. Minor offenders being the most profitable to confine.
And I didn't leave off deterrent. You're suggesting pain of one kind or another can and should be used for a deterrent. That is patently wrong. As I wrote, you're using orture to compel obedience. That the torture is endurable doesn't make it anything but torture. As adults and as a just society we have outgrown punishment. We did that as soon as we could produce enough food and shelter to house and feed a prison population that consists of those in the process of being reformed and those too far gone to be reformed. Anything else isn't justice, it's vengeance. And vengeance has no place in a civil society. It's anger for anger's sake without any constructive goal. It's lashing out. If you allow that kind of lashing out it will come back around to you. Violence and torture are always met with more of the same.
and you can bet your sweet ass that anything they pick up on that mic will be used against him.
Don't like it? Then off to the gulags with you comrade. You were probably a dissident who needs to be locked away for decades anyway, but this is your last chance to prove the commandant wrong.
it's _not_ human nature. Humans have no trouble finding reasons to do stuff, especially really smart ones. The greatest discoveries in the world weren't made by billionaires unless you stretch back so far that only the ultra wealthy had access to even books let alone time to think about something besides food, shelter and war for the king.
Warren Buffet makes a lot of money, but what he doesn't do is advance civilization in any meaningful way. For that you turn to a few tens of thousands of folks at Public Universities making around $120k/yr if they're lucky. Those same guys could go to Wall Street for 10x the pay. Money and survival don't motivate anything but fear, which isn't, as it turns out, all that useful.
that even if you're OK with torture as a means to force compliance with the law you should very much not be. In such a time and place it's only a matter of time before a law's passed you can't or don't want to follow, and you and your family will be on the receiving end of that torture. It's not a question of if, it's when.
A fundamentally unjust society will, all things being equal, deteriorate further. At a certain point only a massive external event (plague, world war, etc) will snap it out of the cycle of deterioration.
That's not any place you want to live. And if you don't want to the time to stop it is now. Let go of the hate and anger that "Tough on Crime" and "Broken Windows Policing" bring. It'll come back to bite us all if you don't.
and give them healthcare, they get to vote. Some rights are so absolutely fundamental that they should never be taken away.
And that's ignoring the fact that we know that Nixon started the drug war specifically to attack and disenfranchise voters he disagreed. This isn't up for debate, it's well documented
Finally, the concept of "paying debt to society" is nonsensical. You're either a continued danger or you're not. Prison must exist either for rehabilitation or containment.
Punishment doesn't work on adults unless they can't reason, and punishment against someone who can't reason is patently immoral. We're not punishing, we're torturing with the hope that the threat of torture will force compliance. That's no way for a just society to behave. If we're going to go that route we can use this and just stop pretending.
I'm guessing no, but it'd be nice if it did. Bernie Sanders just came out in favor of universal suffrage. Meaning even prisoners get to vote. I like that. Folks say "We can't have rapists and murders swinging elections" but if you ask me if you've got so many rapists and murders they're swinging elections maybe fix that.
Slashdot Mirror
this makes it harder for their competitors to index the files in their search engines. I forget the specific technical details, but google's push for HTTPS has nothing to do with privacy and security (I mean, look at who we're talking about here, it's a company that exits to sell ads and your demographic data).
If anyone remembers the technical details feel free to chime in, but this is just an anti-competitive trick.
it's fine for the 16 year old with no credit. Give that kid a few years. The car his mom & dad helped him buy will break down and his two $8/hr jobs won't be enough to get it fixed. He won't know how to fix it himself because we pay for schools with property taxes and Auto Shop was one of the first things cut when the property values in his neighborhood collapsed and his school district lost all it's funding. Kid now has a high interest loan over his head and very little money. So his credit's shot. One of these days he overdraws his account and the bank uses that opportunity to close it out and send him packing since he's all cost and no profit. The divorce he has in his 20s (along with child support) means no bank will touch him. Doesn't help that the mom cleaned out his account right before the divorce
Once the world kicks down you it doesn't stop. Unless some outside force steps in you're pretty much done with. As for the illegals, they've got their own little world that still takes cash that they keep to. Everyone knows they're there but turns a blind eye because the local businesses want to hire them and the locals themselves want their lawns maintained and their houses renovated on the cheap. This has nothing to do with illegal immigration. We could stop that any time we want with stricter employer guidelines and by ending the drug war so the refugees would stop streaming in. But if we did that the right wing in America would lose yet another boogeyman to scare us with.
and lord knows I've done polls on this forum to ask if anyone was going to change their vote. But as part of a broader narrative that the GOP consistently ignores the Will of the People I think it will change votes.
See, this is the difference between the GOP and the Democrats. The GOP pushes their narratives and their policies relentlessly. They lost on Net Neutrality time and time again but they never stopped. Eventually random election cycles and a crap candidate put a pro-corporate Republican in the Whitehouse and now they've won. It'll take a sea change in American politics to get NN back. The Dems would have to take a super majority in the House, Senate and maybe even the presidency if it wasn't at least 70 (for a veto override).
That said, this is the Dems trying to get a message out. One that I'd argue is correct. The GOP really isn't your friend. They do what their donors do 100% of the time and ignore regular folk. We see that in the last tax bill, in the wars they keep us in, in their opposition to the ACA's pre-existing condition coverage and in pretty much everything they do. That point needs to be hammered home because there's a strong taboo about "partisanship" in this country. But as always facts don't care about our feelings and the facts are what the facts are, the GOP has been running against public opinion for decades now. Sure, there are right wing "Blue Dog" Dems who do the same, and the folks who spearheaded the NN vote are the same folks talking about primarying those Dems...
I'm saying there's something left to salvage in the Democratic party. I stopped thinking that way about the GOP ages ago.
It'll be killed by Mitch McConnell in the Senate. The Dems will then add it to the growing list of reasons to vote for them and not the GOP, which given that this is a partisan issue (voting is generally along party lines with one or two GOPers breaking ranks when they know it's safe to do so as it dies in the Senate) I don't think that's unfair.
iTunes is one of the most recognized brands out there. It'll be difficult to maintain that brand identity when you start splitting up features.
The Problem is that when you cut programs for fighting domestic terror in a country where white supremacists account for a disproportionate amount of attacks and then say both sides are bad when literal Nazis are rallying, well...
There just comes a time to call a Spade a Spade. I don't care of Trump really drinks the Kool-Aid or is just doing it for the votes or even the lulz. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and hiel Hitler's like a duck, it's a White Nationalist. Sooner we stop living in denial the better. This will not end well for us otherwise. Ignoring reality never does...
someone who wants to form a whites only ethno-state. This is a thing that exists and is growing and therefore needs a name. What else would you call that? And how is it mangling the language?
It reminds me of one of my mainframe buds who couldn't wrap his head around the concept of metadata. "It's just data!". Well, no, it's not. It's data about data. "But that's just data". Yes, but it's a kind of data, and it became increasingly common and important to discuss so we made a term for it so that we could discuss it more clearly and succinctly.
Same thing here. I could say "Persons who advocate for a White Ethno-State" but if I'm going to be talking about them a lot "White Nationalist" is easier. Now, that I'm stuck talking about them a lot shows how bad things have gotten....
the real problem is we accepted oligarchy in exchange for some minor bigotry and a general fear of change. The bigots are actually a minor problem. Sure, getting rid of their bigotry would fix things (since they tip the scales) but the real problem is folks who see things like minimum wage hike not as paying a living wage but as too risky since it might raise the price of a pizza 75 cents... Nevermind that it's just restaurants that saw a hike or that the hikes are small enough that it's just as likely to be inflation...
Point is, too many Americans living paycheck to paycheck and in a constant state of fear of change means it's damn near impossible to get them to want to fix anything. Which is working exactly as intended...
they haven't passed one piece of workable legislation since the ACA. I mean, I wouldn't call that mess of a tax bill that _raised_ my taxes $50 bucks and resulted in more offshoring and job cuts (look it up, good 'ole unintended consequences) "workable".
private prisons are looked on fondly because they keep the riff-raff out of your neighborhood. Most people are on their parents insurance until they get a job, job funded insurance until they retire and Medicare (socialized medicine for old people who are otherwise uninsurable) after that. There's also a smattering of ex-military who get socialized medicine from our Veteran's Admin by virtue of having served and, well, a lot of them are big on IGMFY.... Free taxes is just one more check box. Why should _I_ pay for the poors to get money back?
It's counter productive. Recently the right wing Dems and GOP are attacking social security and Medicare (they want to means test it, which in America is a death sentence for any program) and have even started cutting the VA under Trump (who can somehow get away with saying and doing anything without taking a hit in the polls). It'll bite them in the ass eventually, but some of them will die before it happens. And in the meantime it just feels so damn good to kick down.
We call it stigginit. I used to think it was a bullshit concept made up by bitter left wingers, but I've seen way, way too much of it to think that anymore...
refuse to vote for politicians who take money from Super PACs and big money donors. I'm adding the latter qualifier as Beto O'Rouke seems to have used the $2700 limit and a lot of repeated small donations to make his fundraising hall look like Bernie Sanders' when it's looking more and more like he got a few thousand rich folk in a donation network to fund his campaign on the sly.
Either way it'll come out later this month when he's forced to declare the number of unique donors. You'll need to watch out for that stuff now, but opensecrets.org is your friend.
Bottom line, just don't vote for anyone who takes PAC money, and watch out for fake populists and this crap just ends. Your Trumps, Bidens, Pelosis, Paul Ryans, etc of the world can't win if they can't outspend real populists 10 to 1.
but is this gonna change how anyone votes?
If not then McConnell has the right idea. This is a high value issue for his donors and a low value issue for his voters. He'll collect his paycheck from AT&T, Cox, etc and ignore the will of the people because it's not strong enough to change what happens at the ballot box.
If you've got it relative to psychokinetic energy I can do the conversion myself.
A Strawman is a weak, unrelated and easily refuted argument brought up in a debate so that the debater can distract from a point he cannot address. Nixon's phony war on drugs is anything but.
It's not weak, because the fact that Nixon used the criminal justice system to attack his political opponents and disenfranchise them is very, very well documented. Nixon is only a single example of this trend in Republicans. Florida is famous for not giving back voting rights under GOP governorship. So much so their people passed a law overriding the governor (who by all account stole the last election using voter suppression tactics). Nixon is an example. He is specifically brought up because he is a strong example.
Next, His actions are related to the topic of granting voting rights to inmates and indeed to _all_ citizens. Nixon is an example of why we should NEVER take away voting rights. He specifically and intentionally misused drug policy to take away voting rights from left wing opposition. You might disagree with the left wing, and might even be willing to give Nixon a pass on what he did. I'm bluntly saying that is bad for you. That eventually they will come for you and your rights. This is what always happens throughout history. There is no amount of money and power that is ever enough. And folks like Nixon will look to take it away from you and your family. So yes, Nixon is definitely related to the disenfranchisement of criminals in that he did so for political means, and he is therefore not unrelated to the main point, and furthermore the fact that Nixon can disenfranchise one political group means he can do so to _any_ political group, which provides ample incentive for you to oppose _any_ disenfranchisement of _any_ citizen.
And as for easily refuted, it took several paragraphs to make my point and for you to read and comprehend it. Laying out the case for Nixon's actions being a direct subversion of democracy and following that logic to it's inevitable conclusion where disenfranchising undesirables fundamentally undermines democracy is a fair amount of work. The decades of "Tough on Crime" propaganda that you yourself are fighting against (as evidenced by the fact that you're still engaging me) show how hard it is. My hope is that by engaging with me and these ideas ("these ideas" because they're not mine, I'm not clever enough to figure this stuff out on my own, hence I seek wise console such as Bernie Sanders) that you'll overcome the propaganda and realize that Bernie's right, and that the right to vote is among the most vital and sacred we have.
if you can't control something as powerful as a government then you're not going to survive long. We already have tons of laws on the books written by and for private prisons to incarcerate minor offenders for longer and to make sure their lives are and stay hell so they're forced back into a revolving door. Minor offenders being the most profitable to confine.
And I didn't leave off deterrent. You're suggesting pain of one kind or another can and should be used for a deterrent. That is patently wrong. As I wrote, you're using orture to compel obedience. That the torture is endurable doesn't make it anything but torture. As adults and as a just society we have outgrown punishment. We did that as soon as we could produce enough food and shelter to house and feed a prison population that consists of those in the process of being reformed and those too far gone to be reformed. Anything else isn't justice, it's vengeance. And vengeance has no place in a civil society. It's anger for anger's sake without any constructive goal. It's lashing out. If you allow that kind of lashing out it will come back around to you. Violence and torture are always met with more of the same.
that's up to and including anything you say to your attorney, because attorney-client privilege is for white collar crimes, the whiter the better.
and you can bet your sweet ass that anything they pick up on that mic will be used against him.
Don't like it? Then off to the gulags with you comrade. You were probably a dissident who needs to be locked away for decades anyway, but this is your last chance to prove the commandant wrong.
it's _not_ human nature. Humans have no trouble finding reasons to do stuff, especially really smart ones. The greatest discoveries in the world weren't made by billionaires unless you stretch back so far that only the ultra wealthy had access to even books let alone time to think about something besides food, shelter and war for the king.
Warren Buffet makes a lot of money, but what he doesn't do is advance civilization in any meaningful way. For that you turn to a few tens of thousands of folks at Public Universities making around $120k/yr if they're lucky. Those same guys could go to Wall Street for 10x the pay. Money and survival don't motivate anything but fear, which isn't, as it turns out, all that useful.
it does me heart good to know somebody out there picked up on this idea.
this is just going to shift a bunch of money around at the top without actually impacting emissions all that much in the short or long term.
that even if you're OK with torture as a means to force compliance with the law you should very much not be. In such a time and place it's only a matter of time before a law's passed you can't or don't want to follow, and you and your family will be on the receiving end of that torture. It's not a question of if, it's when.
A fundamentally unjust society will, all things being equal, deteriorate further. At a certain point only a massive external event (plague, world war, etc) will snap it out of the cycle of deterioration.
That's not any place you want to live. And if you don't want to the time to stop it is now. Let go of the hate and anger that "Tough on Crime" and "Broken Windows Policing" bring. It'll come back to bite us all if you don't.
and give them healthcare, they get to vote. Some rights are so absolutely fundamental that they should never be taken away.
And that's ignoring the fact that we know that Nixon started the drug war specifically to attack and disenfranchise voters he disagreed. This isn't up for debate, it's well documented
Finally, the concept of "paying debt to society" is nonsensical. You're either a continued danger or you're not. Prison must exist either for rehabilitation or containment.
Punishment doesn't work on adults unless they can't reason, and punishment against someone who can't reason is patently immoral. We're not punishing, we're torturing with the hope that the threat of torture will force compliance. That's no way for a just society to behave. If we're going to go that route we can use this and just stop pretending.
I'm guessing no, but it'd be nice if it did. Bernie Sanders just came out in favor of universal suffrage. Meaning even prisoners get to vote. I like that. Folks say "We can't have rapists and murders swinging elections" but if you ask me if you've got so many rapists and murders they're swinging elections maybe fix that.
or you don't know what Chrome is and just click the icon on your desktop that goes to the Internet.
As for why you'd want what is basically a pre-release build? You're a web dev and need to test your application.
that this is one tech that's not going to "trickle down".