who doesn't want too much scrutiny on a new line of business that you probably invested in then yeah, you'd probably write the headline exactly like that.
See here for a much lengthier explanation of the phenomenon.
There is every reason to believe that Bernie Sanders would. He has consistently said he would stop Arms sales to Saudi Arabia and has put forth bills to do just that.
You could argue that once he's in power he won't do that, but again, based on his voting record (not just what he said) I would expect that he would do just that. Now, if you gave him a right wing Congress that could override him then he wouldn't do it, but unlike Obama it wouldn't be for lack of trying. Moreover, if you want results you can't just put one guy in one position (the Presidency) and expect results. If you want reform you've got to vote the bums out. All of them.
FYI, it's still worth voting even if you can only get rid of some of the bums. Otherwise you end up with a gov't entirely composed of bums and they screw you over like nobody's business. Still, it could be so much better if we got rid of all of them. And it's not hard to spot them bums either. Just ask, do they take corporate pac money? If the answer is yes you're dealing with somebody who's been bought out. A bum.
they homeless are having a field day with them. It's pretty easy to yank off the GPS and walk off with them. The batteries have value as scrap too and there's plenty of shady recycling centers that don't ask questions.
This'll go away when the investor cash dries up and they'll be clogging landfills the world over.
being sold on eBay as 1080s. Or 1050 TIs as 1060s (which is easy enough since a 1050 TI has 4 gigs of ram while there's 3gb 1060s out there). 570/580 is another popular scam since there are 4 and 8 gb variants of both.
The goal is to be close enough that by the time you realize you've been had you're past a regular return window.
they'll sell it to you, it's often only about $30-$70/mo more and it often comes without data caps for the extra money. I've got Cox business, it's $100/mo for 100 mbps with no data caps. I mostly got it to escape data caps when they started that crap in my area. The downside is you have to sign a contract (mine's 3 years, but I'm an IT worker, I pretty much don't have a job without internet).
in this context it means "something to do besides screw and make babies". From the inflammatory comment at the end it's clear you're trolling, so you... probably... know this. But it bothers me to think somebody might stumble on your comment and take any part of it seriously.
we spent thousands of years in dark ages until the enlightenment and a general turn away from the Bible and Abrahamic religions. I wouldn't call any part of that 'viable'. I'd call it "a few bad crop cycles away from extinction". Progress of the sort that is likely to lead to a long term viability of our society and species doesn't really mesh with the Bible _because_ of that civil law. The goal is going to be a rampant sort of conservatism that seeks to keep everything the same. A big part of that is because large parts of the Bible were written by rulers who wanted to maintain control, and the last thing any of them want is progress that upsets their rule. After all, if you've already got the absolute best that the world offers why bother trying for more (and risking it).
There are good parts to the Bible, but if we're going to cherry pick them then we have to recognize that a) the Bible was written by fallible men and God has not protected us or the Bible from them and b) it's largely parables and shouldn't be taken literally.
and I do. And lots of other people hold my belief, and lots hold yours.
That's the point. The Bible makes a great book of parables and stories. But it falls apart once you start trying to take it literally because it lacks any scientific basis (and by "scientific" I mean testable hypothesis that can be used to reliably predict future outcomes). Worse, there are several passages that state the Bible it absolute true. If you know your science you know there is not such thing as absolutes outside of Mathematics (and even then it gets hazy past a certain point). You end up with a lot of "working backwards from your conclusion". So that guys like PragerU have to do things like have two articles about Noah's Ark that contradict each other to try and reconcile the problems (go watch Aronra's youtube serious on the flood and the many ways it's impossible).
with the Bible, you can interpret it pretty much however you want. I could argue that if Jesus meant that he could have clarified that you should still wash your hands (being the literal Son of God he should know this). He didn't.
But again, not to get too far into the weeds, because the point is that it's easy to interpret the Bible (and indeed any religious text) however you want. That's because virtually nothing in them is testable, and what little is testable has been proven false (e.g. there's long, long discussions on why Noah's Ark is impossible without magic and miracles that aren't in the story).
The fundamental problem is that whatever your goals, beliefs and positions you can find justification in the bible for it. Again, this makes sense when you know that the people who wrote it literally didn't think anybody would actually read the darn thing.
A good place to start with a rebuttal would be this.
Next in line search for Aronra and the Genetic Skeptic if you want a more serious and complete rebuttal.
I'll note that Miracles seemed to have stopped right around the time we invented the Jet Airplane and the Camera. My personal favorite "Miracles" was a "crying tree" that turned out not to be Angel's tears but wood lice peeing on people. The people were literally being pissed on and told it was raining.
This is not to say I'm opposed to spirituality, but our decisions in life need to be based on hard facts. This being a science forum I'd like to think most of us do. I want a world based on evidence and observable phenomenon (watch some Aronra videos to get a good grasp on what that really means).
For the record I'm genuinely terrified of a world based on mysticism. I want a world without magic because I don't trust folks not to blame their problems on witchcraft and burn me at the stake...
is the main proponent of what Hawking was talking about. Jesus, for example, said that afflictions were caused not by diseases but by what they say. The implication that if you're suffering from a disease you must have blasphemed. There's lots of other examples if you research Prosperity Gospel
The trouble with the Christian Bible is that it was never meant to be read by laypersons. So it's chock full of inconsistencies. You can find something in it to support literally any point of view. Want to be a good person? Bible will tell you how. Want slavery? There's a verse for that. Want to advance human civilization through learning? Check. Want a reason to commit Genocide? Bible's got you covered.
I'm not saying we should go back to the days when people couldn't read the bible unless they were a church leader (Scientology, I'm lookin' at you). But what this does mean is that it doesn't matter how carefully you read the text. The Bible doesn't make a starting point for a viable society. Which is why the US has such a clear separation of Church and State. Because it's too hard to agree on how to read a religion.
The children are an investment, but a risky one. Still, it's the only investment they've got. Education, stocks and IRAs aren't really options for a farmer in India's boondocks.
None of the groups can really "afford" kids in the sense that they can be sure they can provide for them. But in 2nd and 3rd world countries they do it anyway as a roll of the dice. In a 1st world country you've got options, and that's the big difference.
The takeaway is that when people have options they choose to have fewer kids (or none at all). So as long as we continue to progress as a species and provide those options then overpopulation won't be a problem. Well, even if we don't progress it's not a problem, since a primitive species will fall prey to disease and war... But that's not the world any sane person wants to live in.
Birth Control + Bread and Circuses and they stop breeding enough to sustain their population. This is what's happening in every first world country. Even the US with it's Evangelicals can't keep it's birthrate above 2.0. As for "below average", good enough is always good enough. You just need people smart enough that they don't fall for demagogues and mumbo-jumbo. That's not a very high bar, and we can do it now with some more education (yes, that means the liberal arts education that/.ers hate. If you're not smart enough for a STEM degree that's the next best way to tech critical thinking)
When people have options they don't breed uncontrollably. We're not animals. We're people. In the future the problem is likely to be under population. That is, unless we let the Evangelicals take control. Then they'll ban birth control and sex ed based on a few well chosen passages in their holy books.
What this all means is progressivism vs conservatism. e.g. we need to get folks to favor progress and improvement and stop looking back wistfully at the "good 'ole days". That does mean you're gonna have to take care of some folks who are now obsolete (like coal minors) and get over the fact that they get paid to do nothing because there's no useful work they can do anymore. Another thing folks hate because it pisses people off to have to get up to go to work when somebody else doesn't.
You'll pay $10-$20 bucks more for an Android but get privacy and consumer options.
It might be less. You can be Microsoft will be happy to pay a handset manufacturer to make Bing the default. That said, I can run alternatives to google services on my phone and, well, I don't. Not because I can't but because their software tends to be the best, at least for low end phones like my old LG Note.
Facebook has more than enough manpower to do so. In some districts they have online reports.
And if you're facing long lines at the polls then you probably don't have other polling places. That's because long lines is one of the many ways voter suppression is done.
And lets not forget the second half: fake voter requirements. Another popular suppression tactic. During more than one election I got notices that I'd been purged from the rolls, that my polling place had changed, etc, etc. Well, back when I was in a poor district. I moved to a more affluent one a few years back and those stopped.
The Republican party has been on a decades long campaign to buy out the state legislatures (spearheaded by the Koch Bros) with the goal of calling a Constitutional Convention and amending the Constitution to their liking. I assure you they're not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts.
And you'd be shocked how much power your State Attorney General and Corporate Commissioner have. They're definitely being bought. Hell, the Sherrif
In America our oligarchs buy out everybody above dog catcher. Nobody bothers with Dog catcher since they already bought out the mayor and he'll get the catcher in line as needed...
that investment firms would be legally required to have their clients best interests at heart (Fiduciary Responsibility and all that).
I'll give you 3 guesses what happened to that rule when the administration changed....
BTW, what the *bleep* is this doing on/.? I get that we're an aging demographic but is this a slashvertisement or something? Does the parent company of/. own the linked article? Ah well.
at least not in the United States. Here we're afraid of private businesses operating unsafe reactors to save a buck. Worst case with a natural gas plant is a big explosion. With a nuke plant you're talking decades of contamination.
What you need to do to get folks like me to buy into nuclear is convince me it's cheaper to run a safe plant than an unsafe one. And not just because "We'll be sued". Fukushima has more or less proved that there's no real consequences for the folks in charge. They'll be dead before the wheels of justice turn if they ever do. No, we need plants who's day to day operations are cheaper to run safe. Safety is always an option when you need to save money now.
I mean, your accusation that the GP is using an accusation to distract from the original accusation is just another fallacy, right?
Anonymous Coward, am your father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate!
But I'll make it simpler. A straw man is a straw man. Anything used to distract from the central point. The central point here is that Saudi Arabia is a brutal regime that cannot survive on it's own merits and as such uses violence and murder to retain power. Rather than address that the Great Grand Dad called the US out. That's a straw man. Setting something up to be attacked. And it doesn't change a damn thing about Saudi Arabia.
they know damn well how outsourcing works and they'll be damned if you're gonna do it to them. Wanna do business in our country? Then you damn well better hire our people.
but is this gonna change how anyone votes? Donald Trump just said the quiet part out loud. He walked it back because it made him look weak, not because it was a morally reprehensible thing.
This keeps happening too. Paul Ryan has repeatedly called to privatize Medicare for anyone under 55 (being careful not to risk votes of current seniors). Net Neutrality is dead. There's a serious challenge to the Affordable Care Acts protection of pre-existing conditions which I know many/.ers depend on (we're an aging demographic, so we got pre-existing issues alright). So far none of this has budged polls. There might be a bit of a shake up in the mid terms, but only because voters traditionally hand the other side the house just to balance things out. And even then those voters are voting for the more conservative candidates out of the other side, so it's all much the muchness.
So is anyone going to drastically change who their vote for, or start voting consistently when they didn't bother in the past? Is this or anything else above enough to change voting behavior?
And the US at least has pockets of sanity. Our constitution makes theocracy explicitly illegal (though I'm aware of growing movement to institute one, our current VP is a Dominionist for example...). There's several states that have abolished the death penalty (though we haven't had the strength of character to do it nationally).
Yeah, we've got our share of problems, but that doesn't make anything the Saudis do any better. If you want to find a fault in us it's that we continue to sell them weapons and help them bomb schools in Yemen...
Slashdot Mirror
who doesn't want too much scrutiny on a new line of business that you probably invested in then yeah, you'd probably write the headline exactly like that.
See here for a much lengthier explanation of the phenomenon.
There is every reason to believe that Bernie Sanders would. He has consistently said he would stop Arms sales to Saudi Arabia and has put forth bills to do just that.
You could argue that once he's in power he won't do that, but again, based on his voting record (not just what he said) I would expect that he would do just that. Now, if you gave him a right wing Congress that could override him then he wouldn't do it, but unlike Obama it wouldn't be for lack of trying. Moreover, if you want results you can't just put one guy in one position (the Presidency) and expect results. If you want reform you've got to vote the bums out. All of them.
FYI, it's still worth voting even if you can only get rid of some of the bums. Otherwise you end up with a gov't entirely composed of bums and they screw you over like nobody's business. Still, it could be so much better if we got rid of all of them. And it's not hard to spot them bums either. Just ask, do they take corporate pac money? If the answer is yes you're dealing with somebody who's been bought out. A bum.
they homeless are having a field day with them. It's pretty easy to yank off the GPS and walk off with them. The batteries have value as scrap too and there's plenty of shady recycling centers that don't ask questions.
This'll go away when the investor cash dries up and they'll be clogging landfills the world over.
being sold on eBay as 1080s. Or 1050 TIs as 1060s (which is easy enough since a 1050 TI has 4 gigs of ram while there's 3gb 1060s out there). 570/580 is another popular scam since there are 4 and 8 gb variants of both.
The goal is to be close enough that by the time you realize you've been had you're past a regular return window.
they'll sell it to you, it's often only about $30-$70/mo more and it often comes without data caps for the extra money. I've got Cox business, it's $100/mo for 100 mbps with no data caps. I mostly got it to escape data caps when they started that crap in my area. The downside is you have to sign a contract (mine's 3 years, but I'm an IT worker, I pretty much don't have a job without internet).
to your hosting provider? At the consumer level it's like $5-$10/mo (and you can probably get it cheaper elsewhere).
in this context it means "something to do besides screw and make babies". From the inflammatory comment at the end it's clear you're trolling, so you ... probably... know this. But it bothers me to think somebody might stumble on your comment and take any part of it seriously.
we spent thousands of years in dark ages until the enlightenment and a general turn away from the Bible and Abrahamic religions. I wouldn't call any part of that 'viable'. I'd call it "a few bad crop cycles away from extinction". Progress of the sort that is likely to lead to a long term viability of our society and species doesn't really mesh with the Bible _because_ of that civil law. The goal is going to be a rampant sort of conservatism that seeks to keep everything the same. A big part of that is because large parts of the Bible were written by rulers who wanted to maintain control, and the last thing any of them want is progress that upsets their rule. After all, if you've already got the absolute best that the world offers why bother trying for more (and risking it).
There are good parts to the Bible, but if we're going to cherry pick them then we have to recognize that a) the Bible was written by fallible men and God has not protected us or the Bible from them and b) it's largely parables and shouldn't be taken literally.
and I do. And lots of other people hold my belief, and lots hold yours.
That's the point. The Bible makes a great book of parables and stories. But it falls apart once you start trying to take it literally because it lacks any scientific basis (and by "scientific" I mean testable hypothesis that can be used to reliably predict future outcomes). Worse, there are several passages that state the Bible it absolute true. If you know your science you know there is not such thing as absolutes outside of Mathematics (and even then it gets hazy past a certain point). You end up with a lot of "working backwards from your conclusion". So that guys like PragerU have to do things like have two articles about Noah's Ark that contradict each other to try and reconcile the problems (go watch Aronra's youtube serious on the flood and the many ways it's impossible).
with the Bible, you can interpret it pretty much however you want. I could argue that if Jesus meant that he could have clarified that you should still wash your hands (being the literal Son of God he should know this). He didn't.
But again, not to get too far into the weeds, because the point is that it's easy to interpret the Bible (and indeed any religious text) however you want. That's because virtually nothing in them is testable, and what little is testable has been proven false (e.g. there's long, long discussions on why Noah's Ark is impossible without magic and miracles that aren't in the story).
The fundamental problem is that whatever your goals, beliefs and positions you can find justification in the bible for it. Again, this makes sense when you know that the people who wrote it literally didn't think anybody would actually read the darn thing.
it goes like this:
Science can't explain it, therefore MAGIC!
A good place to start with a rebuttal would be this.
Next in line search for Aronra and the Genetic Skeptic if you want a more serious and complete rebuttal.
I'll note that Miracles seemed to have stopped right around the time we invented the Jet Airplane and the Camera. My personal favorite "Miracles" was a "crying tree" that turned out not to be Angel's tears but wood lice peeing on people. The people were literally being pissed on and told it was raining.
This is not to say I'm opposed to spirituality, but our decisions in life need to be based on hard facts. This being a science forum I'd like to think most of us do. I want a world based on evidence and observable phenomenon (watch some Aronra videos to get a good grasp on what that really means).
For the record I'm genuinely terrified of a world based on mysticism. I want a world without magic because I don't trust folks not to blame their problems on witchcraft and burn me at the stake...
is the main proponent of what Hawking was talking about. Jesus, for example, said that afflictions were caused not by diseases but by what they say. The implication that if you're suffering from a disease you must have blasphemed. There's lots of other examples if you research Prosperity Gospel
The trouble with the Christian Bible is that it was never meant to be read by laypersons. So it's chock full of inconsistencies. You can find something in it to support literally any point of view. Want to be a good person? Bible will tell you how. Want slavery? There's a verse for that. Want to advance human civilization through learning? Check. Want a reason to commit Genocide? Bible's got you covered.
I'm not saying we should go back to the days when people couldn't read the bible unless they were a church leader (Scientology, I'm lookin' at you). But what this does mean is that it doesn't matter how carefully you read the text. The Bible doesn't make a starting point for a viable society. Which is why the US has such a clear separation of Church and State. Because it's too hard to agree on how to read a religion.
The children are an investment, but a risky one. Still, it's the only investment they've got. Education, stocks and IRAs aren't really options for a farmer in India's boondocks.
None of the groups can really "afford" kids in the sense that they can be sure they can provide for them. But in 2nd and 3rd world countries they do it anyway as a roll of the dice. In a 1st world country you've got options, and that's the big difference.
The takeaway is that when people have options they choose to have fewer kids (or none at all). So as long as we continue to progress as a species and provide those options then overpopulation won't be a problem. Well, even if we don't progress it's not a problem, since a primitive species will fall prey to disease and war... But that's not the world any sane person wants to live in.
Birth Control + Bread and Circuses and they stop breeding enough to sustain their population. This is what's happening in every first world country. Even the US with it's Evangelicals can't keep it's birthrate above 2.0. As for "below average", good enough is always good enough. You just need people smart enough that they don't fall for demagogues and mumbo-jumbo. That's not a very high bar, and we can do it now with some more education (yes, that means the liberal arts education that /.ers hate. If you're not smart enough for a STEM degree that's the next best way to tech critical thinking)
When people have options they don't breed uncontrollably. We're not animals. We're people. In the future the problem is likely to be under population. That is, unless we let the Evangelicals take control. Then they'll ban birth control and sex ed based on a few well chosen passages in their holy books.
What this all means is progressivism vs conservatism. e.g. we need to get folks to favor progress and improvement and stop looking back wistfully at the "good 'ole days". That does mean you're gonna have to take care of some folks who are now obsolete (like coal minors) and get over the fact that they get paid to do nothing because there's no useful work they can do anymore. Another thing folks hate because it pisses people off to have to get up to go to work when somebody else doesn't.
You'll pay $10-$20 bucks more for an Android but get privacy and consumer options.
It might be less. You can be Microsoft will be happy to pay a handset manufacturer to make Bing the default. That said, I can run alternatives to google services on my phone and, well, I don't. Not because I can't but because their software tends to be the best, at least for low end phones like my old LG Note.
Is the little icon on the tab that lets me mute tabs individually. That's beyond a killer feature.
that's all this is.
Facebook has more than enough manpower to do so. In some districts they have online reports.
And if you're facing long lines at the polls then you probably don't have other polling places. That's because long lines is one of the many ways voter suppression is done.
And lets not forget the second half: fake voter requirements. Another popular suppression tactic. During more than one election I got notices that I'd been purged from the rolls, that my polling place had changed, etc, etc. Well, back when I was in a poor district. I moved to a more affluent one a few years back and those stopped.
The Republican party has been on a decades long campaign to buy out the state legislatures (spearheaded by the Koch Bros) with the goal of calling a Constitutional Convention and amending the Constitution to their liking. I assure you they're not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts.
And you'd be shocked how much power your State Attorney General and Corporate Commissioner have. They're definitely being bought. Hell, the Sherrif
In America our oligarchs buy out everybody above dog catcher. Nobody bothers with Dog catcher since they already bought out the mayor and he'll get the catcher in line as needed...
that investment firms would be legally required to have their clients best interests at heart (Fiduciary Responsibility and all that).
/.? I get that we're an aging demographic but is this a slashvertisement or something? Does the parent company of /. own the linked article? Ah well.
I'll give you 3 guesses what happened to that rule when the administration changed....
BTW, what the *bleep* is this doing on
at least not in the United States. Here we're afraid of private businesses operating unsafe reactors to save a buck. Worst case with a natural gas plant is a big explosion. With a nuke plant you're talking decades of contamination.
What you need to do to get folks like me to buy into nuclear is convince me it's cheaper to run a safe plant than an unsafe one. And not just because "We'll be sued". Fukushima has more or less proved that there's no real consequences for the folks in charge. They'll be dead before the wheels of justice turn if they ever do. No, we need plants who's day to day operations are cheaper to run safe. Safety is always an option when you need to save money now.
I mean, your accusation that the GP is using an accusation to distract from the original accusation is just another fallacy, right?
Anonymous Coward, am your father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate!
But I'll make it simpler. A straw man is a straw man. Anything used to distract from the central point. The central point here is that Saudi Arabia is a brutal regime that cannot survive on it's own merits and as such uses violence and murder to retain power. Rather than address that the Great Grand Dad called the US out. That's a straw man. Setting something up to be attacked. And it doesn't change a damn thing about Saudi Arabia.
they know damn well how outsourcing works and they'll be damned if you're gonna do it to them. Wanna do business in our country? Then you damn well better hire our people.
but is this gonna change how anyone votes? Donald Trump just said the quiet part out loud. He walked it back because it made him look weak, not because it was a morally reprehensible thing.
/.ers depend on (we're an aging demographic, so we got pre-existing issues alright). So far none of this has budged polls. There might be a bit of a shake up in the mid terms, but only because voters traditionally hand the other side the house just to balance things out. And even then those voters are voting for the more conservative candidates out of the other side, so it's all much the muchness.
This keeps happening too. Paul Ryan has repeatedly called to privatize Medicare for anyone under 55 (being careful not to risk votes of current seniors). Net Neutrality is dead. There's a serious challenge to the Affordable Care Acts protection of pre-existing conditions which I know many
So is anyone going to drastically change who their vote for, or start voting consistently when they didn't bother in the past? Is this or anything else above enough to change voting behavior?
And the US at least has pockets of sanity. Our constitution makes theocracy explicitly illegal (though I'm aware of growing movement to institute one, our current VP is a Dominionist for example...). There's several states that have abolished the death penalty (though we haven't had the strength of character to do it nationally).
Yeah, we've got our share of problems, but that doesn't make anything the Saudis do any better. If you want to find a fault in us it's that we continue to sell them weapons and help them bomb schools in Yemen...