Nope. As far as I've been able to tell, he's a real jerk in his own right, regardless of race, sex, national origin, and other such things. He's done some good things in his time, but a lot of not so good things.
Sure, the electorate should be informed of the issues. However, one-sided information has some seriously bad effects. If someone were to truthfully describe all of your bad points to someone else, that person would almost certainly form an unjustly negative opinion of you. It's possible to lie while telling the truth.
If Wikileaks had wanted to inform people about Clinton's emails, Wikileaks would have dumped all the information on the net at once. Leaking it out slowly is a political act, and I will judge it like any other political act. Assange knowlingly helped Trump get elected.
If someone digs for the truth and gets general truth out, that's good. If someone publishes some truths, that's less good. When someone publishes truths in ways designed to help or hurt a political candidate, rather than as a dump, that person is a politician and should be judged accordingly.
So, you're saying that what Wikileaks did was motivated by trying to harm Clinton. You're just anti-Clinton so it doesn't look like political manipulation to you.
Perhaps the reason is that, in Britain, they're usually referred to as "Lord X" or "Lady Y" rather than as "Baron" or "Baroness". You've probably heard of lots of barons and baronesses over the years.
Amazon Web Services make it easy for anyone to start up a web server without having to go through their ISP, and they don't care who you compete with provided your credit card stays valid. I'd say it's easier to start up a commercial server than it ever was in the past. (AWS is certainly not the only one, but they're the one I'm most familiar with.)
Hey, I like the word "mansplaining". "Patronizing" doesn't have the same implications of insisting on explaining something to someone who knows a lot more than you about it.
Launching an internet harassment campaign against someone can be illegal, and it's easier when the victim is someone of unpopular views. The two things aren't independent. It appears to be easier to start an internet harassment campaign than other forms of harassment campaigns, because while there's a relatively small number of people who'd do such a thing it's easy to find lots and lots of them on the net. Further, it's much easier to harass on the internet than in other venues.
I'm going to guess that you didn't try hanging out at comp.lang.lisp. From what I heard, Erik Naggum was a nice guy in person, but on the newsgroup he was insulting to newcomers and assumed the worst in people's mistakes. He single-handedly made that newsgroup unpleasant.
I was also present for the fall of soc-history-misc (the sci.military.naval group of assholes moved in), after it had survived Banned-CPU.
I did learn a whole lot of things in the newsgroups that weren't overrun by assholes. I find I can still learn a whole lot of things on the web.
People who came out of a traumatic event well often say it's choice, and that those who can't take it chose unwisely. This sounds to me much like telling someone with clinical depression to choose happiness.
Some people are more resilient than others. Some people have better family support than others. Some people are born or raised better able to handle verbal abuse. Have a little compassion here.
Cyber-bullying is harder to get away from than older forms of bullying, and it's largely anonymous. If I start bullying a fourteen-year-old girl in real life, people are going to notice. If I make up a fourteen-year-old female persona, it's not as obvious that I'm using decades of experience as a weapon.
Bullying is a problem, and mocking the victims isn't going to help anything.
There's still quirky coffee shops and bookstores. There's still quirky corners of the net. I don't know that any of those has become rarer. (The older non-chain non-quirky non-used bookstores have mostly vanished, and I can't say I miss them much.)
Neither of those are crimes in the US. If you think otherwise, please cite some convictions. In the US, a hate crime is something that's already a crime for other reasons, committed to intimidate groups; in other words, it's committing a crime for purposes of terrorism.
"There are two genders" is a fairly reasonable oversimplification that is often used to try to deny rights to people the speaker disapproves of. "Islam is a religion of hatred" is incorrect, and is often used to justify violating the First Amendment. It can also be used as incitement to violence, which the courts consider to be an action in addition to speech. My reaction to idiots saying that sort of thing is more speech.
The first one is an opinion piece that asks questions. People are allowed to have opinions about possible Constitutional changes and speculate on the effects.
The second one is about prosecuting fraud. The reporting isn't very good, but nobody who really doesn't believe in AGW would be prosecuted. Companies that knew perfectly well it was happening and lied about it for business gain would be prosecuted.
Fortunately for you, it's legal to say stupid things, and while I wish you'd go away, I'm certainly not going to want you shut down by legal means.
The WTO is concerned with government subsidies or tax breaks to businesses, considering them unfair. The distinction between state and federal law doesn't matter outside the US.
Hence my saying that Karl Marx was half right. Many of the demands in the Communist Manifesto are routinely satisfied, at least in part, by most or all first world governments. However, the only Marxism I can support is the Groucho variety.
The government provides a large array of services I use and depend on, and these services cost money. If some people don't pay taxes, then either other people pay more taxes or the government provides fewer and/or lower quality services. (This is completely independent of any question of government waste, which is usually immediately brought up by people fond of being jerking knees of the right wing.)
If I have a corporation pay for my house or car, that's counted as personal income to me, and I pay taxes. Tax breaks to businesses could be seen as income to the business, and the business would be taxed accordingly.
Nope. Business taxes are on profits, so instead of setting prices to maximize profit they set prices to maximize 0.7*profit (or whatever number). Since this is a linear relation, what maximizes profit maximizes 0.7*profit, so there is no effect on the customer. The taxes can't push a business into debt, because they reduce profit rather than impose debt.
Taxes on business operations rather than profit can result in increased prices, but corporate income taxes do not.
The people who ultimately pay the corporate income tax are the stockholders.
Depends on whether you're talking about "pro-business" in the sense of benefiting the business community, or "pro-business" in the sense of benefiting one particular business. Unfortunately, that distinction tends to get blurred.
I don't pay taxes so my local government can hand them over to a sport franchise.
I do. It's what killed my last enthusiasm for spectator sports. In one case, the Legislature passed a special law to allow the taxes to go forward without the normally mandatory popular vote.
I've seen people use tablets to create content, primarily by typing. Detachable keyboards make it easier. There are programs to draw and create music on iOS and Android, and presumably some people use them.
Besides, the typical use of a desktop is light word processing, games, and web surfing, which can all be done on a phone or tablet (although with different types of games).
Okay. My state usually goes Democrat. If my vote is going to change the outcome in my state, it means the state goes 50-50. In that case, the Republicans have won in other states, and my state's electors will make no difference.
I have a very slight influence over who my state's electoral votes go to. My vote for President doesn't matter in the least.
Everything goes into the general pool one way or another, but different taxes have different purposes. Carbon taxes would be used to correct for serious market externalities. What we were discussing is whether the purpose behind tobacco taxes would be considered successful based on people quitting smoking or money taken in, which are obviously incompatible.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. As far as I've been able to tell, he's a real jerk in his own right, regardless of race, sex, national origin, and other such things. He's done some good things in his time, but a lot of not so good things.
Sure, the electorate should be informed of the issues. However, one-sided information has some seriously bad effects. If someone were to truthfully describe all of your bad points to someone else, that person would almost certainly form an unjustly negative opinion of you. It's possible to lie while telling the truth.
If Wikileaks had wanted to inform people about Clinton's emails, Wikileaks would have dumped all the information on the net at once. Leaking it out slowly is a political act, and I will judge it like any other political act. Assange knowlingly helped Trump get elected.
If someone digs for the truth and gets general truth out, that's good. If someone publishes some truths, that's less good. When someone publishes truths in ways designed to help or hurt a political candidate, rather than as a dump, that person is a politician and should be judged accordingly.
In other words, you approve of the political purposes behind leaks, and have no frickin' idea how international politics works.
So, you're saying that what Wikileaks did was motivated by trying to harm Clinton. You're just anti-Clinton so it doesn't look like political manipulation to you.
Perhaps the reason is that, in Britain, they're usually referred to as "Lord X" or "Lady Y" rather than as "Baron" or "Baroness". You've probably heard of lots of barons and baronesses over the years.
Amazon Web Services make it easy for anyone to start up a web server without having to go through their ISP, and they don't care who you compete with provided your credit card stays valid. I'd say it's easier to start up a commercial server than it ever was in the past. (AWS is certainly not the only one, but they're the one I'm most familiar with.)
Hey, I like the word "mansplaining". "Patronizing" doesn't have the same implications of insisting on explaining something to someone who knows a lot more than you about it.
Launching an internet harassment campaign against someone can be illegal, and it's easier when the victim is someone of unpopular views. The two things aren't independent. It appears to be easier to start an internet harassment campaign than other forms of harassment campaigns, because while there's a relatively small number of people who'd do such a thing it's easy to find lots and lots of them on the net. Further, it's much easier to harass on the internet than in other venues.
I'm going to guess that you didn't try hanging out at comp.lang.lisp. From what I heard, Erik Naggum was a nice guy in person, but on the newsgroup he was insulting to newcomers and assumed the worst in people's mistakes. He single-handedly made that newsgroup unpleasant.
I was also present for the fall of soc-history-misc (the sci.military.naval group of assholes moved in), after it had survived Banned-CPU.
I did learn a whole lot of things in the newsgroups that weren't overrun by assholes. I find I can still learn a whole lot of things on the web.
People who came out of a traumatic event well often say it's choice, and that those who can't take it chose unwisely. This sounds to me much like telling someone with clinical depression to choose happiness.
Some people are more resilient than others. Some people have better family support than others. Some people are born or raised better able to handle verbal abuse. Have a little compassion here.
Sticks and stones can break my bones. Only words can make me feel I deserve it.
Words can hurt forever. I'm not saying they always do, but lots of people are affected by bullying for large parts or all of their lifetimes.
Cyber-bullying is harder to get away from than older forms of bullying, and it's largely anonymous. If I start bullying a fourteen-year-old girl in real life, people are going to notice. If I make up a fourteen-year-old female persona, it's not as obvious that I'm using decades of experience as a weapon.
Bullying is a problem, and mocking the victims isn't going to help anything.
There's still quirky coffee shops and bookstores. There's still quirky corners of the net. I don't know that any of those has become rarer. (The older non-chain non-quirky non-used bookstores have mostly vanished, and I can't say I miss them much.)
Neither of those are crimes in the US. If you think otherwise, please cite some convictions. In the US, a hate crime is something that's already a crime for other reasons, committed to intimidate groups; in other words, it's committing a crime for purposes of terrorism.
"There are two genders" is a fairly reasonable oversimplification that is often used to try to deny rights to people the speaker disapproves of. "Islam is a religion of hatred" is incorrect, and is often used to justify violating the First Amendment. It can also be used as incitement to violence, which the courts consider to be an action in addition to speech. My reaction to idiots saying that sort of thing is more speech.
The first one is an opinion piece that asks questions. People are allowed to have opinions about possible Constitutional changes and speculate on the effects.
The second one is about prosecuting fraud. The reporting isn't very good, but nobody who really doesn't believe in AGW would be prosecuted. Companies that knew perfectly well it was happening and lied about it for business gain would be prosecuted.
Fortunately for you, it's legal to say stupid things, and while I wish you'd go away, I'm certainly not going to want you shut down by legal means.
The WTO is concerned with government subsidies or tax breaks to businesses, considering them unfair. The distinction between state and federal law doesn't matter outside the US.
Hence my saying that Karl Marx was half right. Many of the demands in the Communist Manifesto are routinely satisfied, at least in part, by most or all first world governments. However, the only Marxism I can support is the Groucho variety.
The government provides a large array of services I use and depend on, and these services cost money. If some people don't pay taxes, then either other people pay more taxes or the government provides fewer and/or lower quality services. (This is completely independent of any question of government waste, which is usually immediately brought up by people fond of being jerking knees of the right wing.)
If I have a corporation pay for my house or car, that's counted as personal income to me, and I pay taxes. Tax breaks to businesses could be seen as income to the business, and the business would be taxed accordingly.
Nope. Business taxes are on profits, so instead of setting prices to maximize profit they set prices to maximize 0.7*profit (or whatever number). Since this is a linear relation, what maximizes profit maximizes 0.7*profit, so there is no effect on the customer. The taxes can't push a business into debt, because they reduce profit rather than impose debt.
Taxes on business operations rather than profit can result in increased prices, but corporate income taxes do not.
The people who ultimately pay the corporate income tax are the stockholders.
Depends on whether you're talking about "pro-business" in the sense of benefiting the business community, or "pro-business" in the sense of benefiting one particular business. Unfortunately, that distinction tends to get blurred.
I do. It's what killed my last enthusiasm for spectator sports. In one case, the Legislature passed a special law to allow the taxes to go forward without the normally mandatory popular vote.
I've seen people use tablets to create content, primarily by typing. Detachable keyboards make it easier. There are programs to draw and create music on iOS and Android, and presumably some people use them.
Besides, the typical use of a desktop is light word processing, games, and web surfing, which can all be done on a phone or tablet (although with different types of games).
Okay. My state usually goes Democrat. If my vote is going to change the outcome in my state, it means the state goes 50-50. In that case, the Republicans have won in other states, and my state's electors will make no difference.
I have a very slight influence over who my state's electoral votes go to. My vote for President doesn't matter in the least.
Everything goes into the general pool one way or another, but different taxes have different purposes. Carbon taxes would be used to correct for serious market externalities. What we were discussing is whether the purpose behind tobacco taxes would be considered successful based on people quitting smoking or money taken in, which are obviously incompatible.