What Obama is saying is that you have to educate people to the jobs of the future instead of bank tellers. Obama is basically just stating an obvious fact and faux news misrepresents it to help the republican party. The US is facing a lot of problems these days, and this smearing instead of having honest discussions to find solutions is a big part of it.
What does "faux news" (real mature) have to do with it? There are lots of problems, yes, and Obama has either perpetuated the causes or is ignoring the - and NONE were caused by ATMs or kiosks - it's just a deflection. No need for a "smear", he is obviously not addressing the issues, just trying to assign blame. And blaming companies for "efficiencies" like ATMs, kiosks, or any other technological innovation is unhelpful and disingenuous.
Call this sort of transparent tripe "honest" is not even a stretch, it's outright blindness.
Nowhere in the article you provided did I see that tone.
No, of course not. Gotta promote this meme that "efficiency" is keeping the unemployment rate high, when in fact those things existed back when unemployment was less than 5%, and didn't seem to keep people from finding work...
But we've got to find something to blame (other than ourselves) for our ruinous cronyism and extreme level of debt and spending.
Yeah, let's all laugh at him and his comfortable six-figure salary "idiocy" while we scrape to make rent, and eek out a half decent living. We're better than him!
If you're paying the bills and eeking out a living, you're living the Dream! At least according to Obama. If you're not paying the bills, maybe you can get a special degree (or is it a "badge"?) so you can work in a factory. Living the Dream!!
There was no hint in the announcement made by Jack Lew, director of the Office of Management and Budget, that Kundra's exit was prompted by a shift in the White House's view on IT.
Will this help or hurt? A little before the turn of the century I researched Quake and Quake II console commands, tested them all, and wrote short descriptions of how to use them and what they did. It was copied on dozens of other web sites, word for word, usually with no attribution and usually with someone else's name on it.
I'm not sure that would even be covered by copyright law. You aren't allowed to copyright "facts" or "factual data". Maybe if your "short descriptions" were long enough, or expounded on the command beyond being a simple summary, it could be considered an original work. But for the most part, a simple compilation or list of factual information is not considered a copyrightable work.
All reasonable people do. The vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations support the theory that humans are doing irreversible damage to the climate through the uncontrolled release of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide.
Well that's a considerable broader position that I can completely agree with, but it's not excessively off the mark, and not really anything I was disputing.
You seem to think there is some grand global conspiracy between unrelated groups of scientists world-wide.
Oh here's your straw man again. This whole fucking "groups of scientists" bullshit over again. There's no "scientists" (unless your definition is WAY off from any accepted definition) claiming to have all the answers to the warming and increasing CO2. Why would I even respond to this kind of crap. These guys aren't scientists, they are politicians and looters posing as diplomats. They are the elite monied interests disseminating the perils scientists warn about, and using it to promote their own controlling agenda as the only solution, with the actual benefits to the environment (and the vast majority of mankind) only used as rhetoric to support their ideas.
Don't try and weasel out it. Please explain how these "experts" get the entire scientific community to go along with this nefarious plan for world domination?
Oh like your own ideologies don't have any impact on the institutional directions you will support... right. And nobody is focused on some significantly important specialization of research without having total understading of how the authorities many layers up might eventually (mis)use their work? Huh? Is that your contention? That everybody has the big picture of everything and nobody's work can could be used for nefarious purposes without full disclosure? Do you understand how large and insidious the plans and processes are laid out and how the debate over science is just scratching the surface (as well as a useful distraction)?
I suggest you do a little research. You are obviously grossly uninformed. Here's a short primer:
How's that tin-foil hat fitting you? There really is no reasoning with somebody as irrationally paranoid as you.
Step 1: Call your opponent crazy
You really think that the entire scientific community is going along with this to further some political aim.
Step 2: Create a straw man argument and attribute it to your opponent to support your insanity accusation. Claim that all "reasonable" people already support your own position.
Do you ever stop to listen to the nonsense you are spewing?
Final Step: Dismiss your opponent's stance as nonsense, not worthy of further research or discussion.
Uh, your e-mail address shows as....lizardslounge...
I see no reason to imply a connection to lizard people.
No, no. The conspiracy theorists say the lizard people are the hidden BAD guys. They don't claim to BE lizard people.:)
But, seriously, why do you think that some understanding of physics implies a desire for "Global Communist Government"?
I don't know why you would make a connection to physics... at all. Way out in left field, dude.
The new fake environmentalism has nothing to do with science at all. Their own documents from the original Agenda 21 to the documents from the PCSD and ICLEI state that it doesn't matter whether the science can be proven or not, the agenda is the most important thing.
To entertain your strawman for a moment, so for you, global communism is worse that the destruction of the globe? You'd rather see the state of Florida under water before, god forbid, we share even a little bit of the wealth of the industrialized world? Better dead than red I guess?
Actually, it seems to look more like feudalism or Lenin-style "communism" than anything. I don't accept your premise that the choice is slavery or an uninhabitable earth, however. Environmental protection isn't even the real goal, it's just an excuse to get you to go along with reverting to subsistence living while the "experts" control all the resources.
The dispute lies in our views of Genesis as factual in any sense.
I doubt there is really any significant dispute there.
And, I suspect in our views of the ongoing benefit of the associated institutions to mankind.
That depends on what "associated institutions" you are referring to, but I would probably have very little argument with you there, either.
Probably the only major point of dispute would be that I feel strongly that students in school should have a certain amount of exposure to the texts. That's not that any sort of religious doctrine should be taught as right or factual (it shouldn't), but only that the oldest and most widely-distributed collection of literature known to man should not be subject to an outright ban in institutions of learning.
but will utterly deny the possibility that a written record of an account handed down by the first man created by God could possibly true?
Because that is utterly ridiculous.
Do you acknowledge the possibility that Greek mythology is historically accurate? I don't.
There is very little in Greek mythology that describes historical events - all I can think of off-hand is the Iliad, which certainly described a historical even (the Trojan War), but in fanciful detail. As it turns out, many of the "non-magical" descriptions, once thought to be total fiction, have turned out to be closer to the truth when studied by archeologists.
But what's valuable about the Greek myths, especially stories of the gods, was not historical significance but rather their very insightful commentary on various aspects of human nature. We still use their names to describe these traits - Narcissus, Oedipus, Aphrodite and other Greek gods are still in our vocabulary because they described through story things that we see in society today.
This is not dissimilar than the vast collection of human wisdom contained in the Bible. Most of the stories are not literal descriptions of events - those that are have probably been embellished beyond recognition from centuries of verbal tradition before being recorded. So there is a lot of stuff in there, but none of it should be taken literally without understanding the origins of the stories, but neither should the entire thing be dismissed as pure fantasy, either.
Amazing. I'm halfway down the page (reading at -1) and this is the first comment rated higher than a 3. It really has nothing to do with the article, is only barely on-topic because the GPP decided it was an opportunity to bash religion, and it doesn't make any point other than validate a bunch of people's biases.
The issues in Texas where they have put creationism in books, a fundamentally specific religious ideology towards christianity.
That's nothing compared to the indoctrinated ideology from the One World Communists that they have been pushing into the curriculum for the last 20 years.
They don't matter. They haven't paid the requisite Campaign Contribution necessary for their opinions to be considered.
I came here to say this. Saying these guys are "heavywieghts" in DNS doesn't matter one whit - how many senators they own, that's they only "weight" that's going to matter in this debate.
Slashdot Mirror
To them, cheap energy (no matter the source) is the problem.
No, energy which isn't priced to include the external factors, like environmental impact is the problem.
"Externalities" is the new "Divine Right of Kings"
What Obama is saying is that you have to educate people to the jobs of the future instead of bank tellers. Obama is basically just stating an obvious fact and faux news misrepresents it to help the republican party. The US is facing a lot of problems these days, and this smearing instead of having honest discussions to find solutions is a big part of it.
What does "faux news" (real mature) have to do with it? There are lots of problems, yes, and Obama has either perpetuated the causes or is ignoring the - and NONE were caused by ATMs or kiosks - it's just a deflection. No need for a "smear", he is obviously not addressing the issues, just trying to assign blame. And blaming companies for "efficiencies" like ATMs, kiosks, or any other technological innovation is unhelpful and disingenuous.
Call this sort of transparent tripe "honest" is not even a stretch, it's outright blindness.
Nowhere in the article you provided did I see that tone.
No, of course not. Gotta promote this meme that "efficiency" is keeping the unemployment rate high, when in fact those things existed back when unemployment was less than 5%, and didn't seem to keep people from finding work...
But we've got to find something to blame (other than ourselves) for our ruinous cronyism and extreme level of debt and spending.
Yeah, let's all laugh at him and his comfortable six-figure salary "idiocy" while we scrape to make rent, and eek out a half decent living. We're better than him!
If you're paying the bills and eeking out a living, you're living the Dream! At least according to Obama. If you're not paying the bills, maybe you can get a special degree (or is it a "badge"?) so you can work in a factory. Living the Dream!!
There was no hint in the announcement made by Jack Lew, director of the Office of Management and Budget, that Kundra's exit was prompted by a shift in the White House's view on IT.
You mean how greedy businesses have caused job-killing structural changes in the economy by implementing efficiencies like ATM machines and airport kiosks that hurt workers?
Will this help or hurt? A little before the turn of the century I researched Quake and Quake II console commands, tested them all, and wrote short descriptions of how to use them and what they did. It was copied on dozens of other web sites, word for word, usually with no attribution and usually with someone else's name on it.
I'm not sure that would even be covered by copyright law. You aren't allowed to copyright "facts" or "factual data". Maybe if your "short descriptions" were long enough, or expounded on the command beyond being a simple summary, it could be considered an original work. But for the most part, a simple compilation or list of factual information is not considered a copyrightable work.
All reasonable people do. The vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations support the theory that humans are doing irreversible damage to the climate through the uncontrolled release of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide.
Well that's a considerable broader position that I can completely agree with, but it's not excessively off the mark, and not really anything I was disputing.
You seem to think there is some grand global conspiracy between unrelated groups of scientists world-wide.
Oh here's your straw man again. This whole fucking "groups of scientists" bullshit over again. There's no "scientists" (unless your definition is WAY off from any accepted definition) claiming to have all the answers to the warming and increasing CO2. Why would I even respond to this kind of crap. These guys aren't scientists, they are politicians and looters posing as diplomats. They are the elite monied interests disseminating the perils scientists warn about, and using it to promote their own controlling agenda as the only solution, with the actual benefits to the environment (and the vast majority of mankind) only used as rhetoric to support their ideas.
Don't try and weasel out it. Please explain how these "experts" get the entire scientific community to go along with this nefarious plan for world domination?
Oh like your own ideologies don't have any impact on the institutional directions you will support... right. And nobody is focused on some significantly important specialization of research without having total understading of how the authorities many layers up might eventually (mis)use their work? Huh? Is that your contention? That everybody has the big picture of everything and nobody's work can could be used for nefarious purposes without full disclosure? Do you understand how large and insidious the plans and processes are laid out and how the debate over science is just scratching the surface (as well as a useful distraction)?
I suggest you do a little research. You are obviously grossly uninformed. Here's a short primer:
Donna Holt, Virginia
ICLEI
What ICLEI does
How's that tin-foil hat fitting you? There really is no reasoning with somebody as irrationally paranoid as you.
Step 1: Call your opponent crazy
You really think that the entire scientific community is going along with this to further some political aim.
Step 2: Create a straw man argument and attribute it to your opponent to support your insanity accusation. Claim that all "reasonable" people already support your own position.
Do you ever stop to listen to the nonsense you are spewing?
Final Step: Dismiss your opponent's stance as nonsense, not worthy of further research or discussion.
That all you got?
Uh, your e-mail address shows as ....lizardslounge...
I see no reason to imply a connection to lizard people.
No, no. The conspiracy theorists say the lizard people are the hidden BAD guys. They don't claim to BE lizard people. :)
But, seriously, why do you think that some understanding of physics implies a desire for "Global Communist Government"?
I don't know why you would make a connection to physics ... at all. Way out in left field, dude.
The new fake environmentalism has nothing to do with science at all. Their own documents from the original Agenda 21 to the documents from the PCSD and ICLEI state that it doesn't matter whether the science can be proven or not, the agenda is the most important thing.
point taken.
Why use the term "warmist"?
I was responding to a post that used the term "denier". Fair's fair.
Ever since the fall of Communism
There was no "fall of Communism". Just a change in strategy. And it's working very quickly.
To entertain your strawman for a moment, so for you, global communism is worse that the destruction of the globe? You'd rather see the state of Florida under water before, god forbid, we share even a little bit of the wealth of the industrialized world? Better dead than red I guess?
Actually, it seems to look more like feudalism or Lenin-style "communism" than anything. I don't accept your premise that the choice is slavery or an uninhabitable earth, however. Environmental protection isn't even the real goal, it's just an excuse to get you to go along with reverting to subsistence living while the "experts" control all the resources.
Why do you believe that? Did the strange voice in your head tell you?
Nice try, but not quite. You forgot to imply an irrational fear of brown people, and a connection to a lizard people conspiracy group.
China. More cars and coal plants than ever. Oh, and India, too. growing at about 8%, almost entirely on fossil fuels.
I believe the global warmist argument goes like this:
The dispute lies in our views of Genesis as factual in any sense.
I doubt there is really any significant dispute there.
And, I suspect in our views of the ongoing benefit of the associated institutions to mankind.
That depends on what "associated institutions" you are referring to, but I would probably have very little argument with you there, either.
Probably the only major point of dispute would be that I feel strongly that students in school should have a certain amount of exposure to the texts. That's not that any sort of religious doctrine should be taught as right or factual (it shouldn't), but only that the oldest and most widely-distributed collection of literature known to man should not be subject to an outright ban in institutions of learning.
Because that is utterly ridiculous.
Do you acknowledge the possibility that Greek mythology is historically accurate? I don't.
There is very little in Greek mythology that describes historical events - all I can think of off-hand is the Iliad, which certainly described a historical even (the Trojan War), but in fanciful detail. As it turns out, many of the "non-magical" descriptions, once thought to be total fiction, have turned out to be closer to the truth when studied by archeologists.
But what's valuable about the Greek myths, especially stories of the gods, was not historical significance but rather their very insightful commentary on various aspects of human nature. We still use their names to describe these traits - Narcissus, Oedipus, Aphrodite and other Greek gods are still in our vocabulary because they described through story things that we see in society today.
This is not dissimilar than the vast collection of human wisdom contained in the Bible. Most of the stories are not literal descriptions of events - those that are have probably been embellished beyond recognition from centuries of verbal tradition before being recorded. So there is a lot of stuff in there, but none of it should be taken literally without understanding the origins of the stories, but neither should the entire thing be dismissed as pure fantasy, either.
Amazing. I'm halfway down the page (reading at -1) and this is the first comment rated higher than a 3. It really has nothing to do with the article, is only barely on-topic because the GPP decided it was an opportunity to bash religion, and it doesn't make any point other than validate a bunch of people's biases.
Bible hate is popular here!
At least it's not an entry on the Fox News website.
Oh, yes, at least. Better that we wait a year for some other news source to pick up the story!
The issues in Texas where they have put creationism in books, a fundamentally specific religious ideology towards christianity.
That's nothing compared to the indoctrinated ideology from the One World Communists that they have been pushing into the curriculum for the last 20 years.
They don't matter. They haven't paid the requisite Campaign Contribution necessary for their opinions to be considered.
I came here to say this. Saying these guys are "heavywieghts" in DNS doesn't matter one whit - how many senators they own, that's they only "weight" that's going to matter in this debate.
Leo Laporte was invited, too, but his flight was cancelled.
Shouldn't they have called it the iG8? Or did they opt for e-G8 because are they afraid of Apple's IP lawyers?
So it really is the end of days? Will it be out before the October 21st apocalypse?