Facebook and Twitter are private corporations. Now, I don't get the memos on how you right-wingers are supposed to think (I never even receive the memos to me as a leftist), but I thought you liked free enterprise and wanted regulation to be limited. Social media profits depend on what they permit and what they don't. In the meantime, if you don't like what they don't let you say, it's really easy to set up your own site. Contrast this with the situation when I was a kid, and it was very difficult to get your views any sort of hearing if the MSM didn't cooperate.
I don't really understand your final paragraph. I don't see the antecedent for "this" in "this is all acceptable", and Democrats are not very uniform in beliefs. "I belong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers. I also don't quite understand what you mean by "insular view", or why you think you understand US politics better than I do.
So... you're disagreeing with AmiMojo that the term has no meaning?
I'm pointing out that the Urban Dictionary definition cited above is bipartisan.
Not really. Slashdot is mostly libertarian.
Slashdot's a lot more varied than that. There are Trump supporters, and Trump isn't libertarian. He appeals to the far right, the nihilists, and the gullible. There's a fair number of us leftists.
For example, slashdot objects to the attack on video games from BOTH the right and the left (the Jack Thompsons and Anita Sarkeesians)
I was against violent video games before I started seriously looking at the evidence. They don't see to harm people in general, and some people find them fun. I'm not convinced that the right and the left are united against video games (except for the complaints all my life about anything teens find to do that isn't sex or drugs).
Slashdot is also more concerned on issues related to copyright and piracy than traditional left or right wing. Ditto concerns on online privacy
Yeah, and not that long ago I was about to wax eloquent about H-1B visas when I realized nobody in the room was likely to know or care. Slashdot is quite sensitive to issues that affect software developers.
Ditto crypto-currenies and their effects on societies/economies/governments.
If what you mean to say is that a lot of us have fairly strong opinions, sure. If you're trying to imply any trace of consensus, you're wrong.
The bigger concern is over having the state/taxpayers pay for other people's abortions. Ditto gay rights.
And all those who think it's murder and all those who think it's part of health care and should be paid for like other health care should be. I'm fine with my tax dollars going to help people with psoriasis or depression; why not those who need abortions?
As far as gay rights, why would treating them like everybody else cost money? I don't think that oppressing them to improve other people's financial positions would be popular here.
From an intellectual point of view, I agree with you on "offense". You have a perfect right to be offended by what I say, and I have a perfect right to snicker about it. However, if a business gets a lot of offended customers, they're likely to lose a lot of potential revenue. Social media therefore has to try to cut down on the amount of potentially offensive material their customer base sees, or they'll be replaced by another company that does. People who take political opinions much more personally than you or me have money too.
Yup, and those are old established companies without prospects for dramatic improvements in revenue. The stock market can stay irrational for a long time (in the old quote, longer than you can stay solvent).
What should I have learned? I knew pretty much everything you said. I couldn't remember what that 1986 law was called, but you didn't say either.
What I meant is that we have laws that make it very difficult to own automatic weapons, and ban all less than about thirty years old, and extending that to the closest non-automatic equivalents wasn't much of a stretch If I was unclear, I apologize.
Given the wording of the Second, it seems odd to me that I can't buy a modern infantry rifle, and I don't see that the Second should allow AR-15s and not M16A4s.
I wasn't aware that 30 rounds was a standard magazine size for a semi-auto rifle. It seems awfully high. We fought WWII with semi-automatic rifles with eight-round clips. Thirty rounds seems unnecessary for most purposes, and I'd think reducing the magazine size would reduce the weight and make the weapon more manageable.
As I said, the reason given in the Federalist papers was that it wouldn't allow Trump to be President. (Okay, they didn't use his name, but the description was pretty much on.) I think it's Federalist 68. You go read that and find out I'm right and you were wrong in your response to what I said. You're clearly referring to other arguments that I haven't seen documentation on.
It's a matter of scale. Pumped hydro is useless for a power grid unless it can store a whole lot of energy. Moving 500 tons of water up and down 20m isn't going to be significant compared to the demands of a neighborhood. If it were that easy, everybody would be doing it.
Calling someone incompetent when they are is neither vile nor misogyny. It could be a misjudgment, but nothing about Palin ever screamed "competence" to me. Calling Clinton a criminal is not necessarily misogyny, but seems to fall short on the question of evidence. The only real rap against her is the classified material in the email, and I've never seen a plausible argument that she did it deliberately. I haven't found a case of anyone who faced criminal prosecution for non-deliberate mishandling of classified material.
In the union labor action I was closely involved with (as in Mom was in the union), the union was primarily demanding better working conditions, since they managed to more or less agree on the pay. The newspapers presented it as all about the pay, and mentioned only the brackets where management was offering the largest wages.
Remember, most of what mainstream media declares to be fact is. They have their own interpretations, and can be selective about facts.
You know, I actually looked up your first Wikipedia cite. It's a potential danger you need to consider when posting.
[The pumped hydro storage in your first cite] consists of a reservoir 110 feet (34 m) deep, 2.5 miles (4.0 km) long, and one mile (1.6 km) wide which holds 27 billion US gallons (100 Gl) or 82859 acre-feet of water.
That would be one heck of an impressive water tower.
The Electoral College exists as a result of a compromise with slave states. Slaves and other unfree persons were counted as 3/5 of a free person in allotting House seats, and if the Presidency was a popular vote the slave state people wouldn't get additional power from their slaves.
The reason given in the Federalist Papers, on the other hand, is so they wouldn't allow anyone like Trump to become President.
Clearly, the EC serves none of its original purposes any more.
As far as my utilities go, my water and sewer are provided directly by the city, my electrical and gas and phone connections are regulated monopolies, and my garbage is picked up by private companies hired by the city. All of them work pretty well.
Hispanics are basically religious conservatives, and they tend to vote Democrat. They simply don't feel like the Republicans are willing to accept them.
Even if you're stupid enough to think Hitler or the Nazis were somehow left-wing, a casual reading of the history would show that Hitler achieved power by wooing the right wing, and he became Chancellor because he had support from right-wing authoritarians (who thought they could control him, that didn't work).
No, that's not how manufacturing tolerances work. What tight tolerances mean is that that piston is 75+/-0.001 mm (wash hands after handling the numbers I'm throwing out) and the cylinder there is 75.5+/- 0.001mm wide, leaving precisely a quarter-millimeter gap all around. That's what tight manufacturing tolerances mean. Things that have to be a little loose will still be a little loose, but you will know very precisely how loose.
Clinton lied when answering a question that really had no relevance in a trial that was eventually thrown out because the plaintiff's claims didn't add up to anything illegal. The evidence was enough to conclude that he's a real jerk, but that's still legal.
There are some claims about Clinton I find disturbing, but he wasn't on trial for any of those.
Used to be I could rely on NoScript to protect me on the web. I'd look at the list of sites trying to serve me Javascript, and allow the few that were relevant to what I actually want to do on the site. Nowadays, that JS relies on stuff they pull in from other sites with names that tell me nothing, so NoScript isn't that useful anymore. Whitelisting just isn't as useful as it used to be.
I'm not going to speak for ShanghaiBill, but anybody who searches through my Slashdot history will know most of my hobbies, a lot of my interests, my politics and positions on specific issues, and my vagueness on religion (I think I've mentioned that I'm "None of the above" for most lists). I've mentioned the city I live in, and if you assume that "david_thornley" means "David Thornley", I'll tell you up front that you will find one person of that name in that city, whose address and phone number is readily available.
So, go ahead and send that information to anybody. I can ruffle the feathers of lots of people, and often find it an entertaining side effect. My favorite programming languages are C++, Lisp, and Perl, which means I can get into a language flamewar with almost anyone who pays attention to such things. I've been insulted by stupider people than you, Opportunist, although nobody's displaced "black propagandist" as my favorite of the things I've been called, and that's fifteen years old.
You should be able to find my Facebook account, and you're welcome to anything you find there. I don't mark anything as private or restricted deliberately, since I have precisely zero faith in keeping anything on Facebook out of my permanent public record. There are things I don't mention on the net, and I'll leave imagining what they might be as an exercise for the reader.
Now, among what you've got from Slashdot, Facebook, and a log of my HTTP requests, you're not going to find my SSAN, so it will be easier to do identify theft with information from other sources. That, and a few other things, I'm careful about.
Actually, I thought Reagan would make a fine king, although I was dubious about "Ronald I". You left out "Defender of the Seas" or some such phrase, BTW. Any king of the US past, say, 1890, needs something like that in his title.
There's also plenty of bubbles outside the "elite". There's poor rural bubbles, for example, where nobody thinks why things are different in the cities.
The "Left" isn't particularly unified on this. Some leftists would like gun ownership mostly abolished, sure. Lots would like to see weapons like the AR-15 banned, but aren't willing to campaign to ban handguns and hunting rifles. A ban on AR-15 class weapons would be rather similar to the Reagan-era legislation on owning automatic weapons, and IIRC the NRA was in favor of that (can't find references right now, sorry).
Slashdot Mirror
Facebook and Twitter are private corporations. Now, I don't get the memos on how you right-wingers are supposed to think (I never even receive the memos to me as a leftist), but I thought you liked free enterprise and wanted regulation to be limited. Social media profits depend on what they permit and what they don't. In the meantime, if you don't like what they don't let you say, it's really easy to set up your own site. Contrast this with the situation when I was a kid, and it was very difficult to get your views any sort of hearing if the MSM didn't cooperate.
I don't really understand your final paragraph. I don't see the antecedent for "this" in "this is all acceptable", and Democrats are not very uniform in beliefs. "I belong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers. I also don't quite understand what you mean by "insular view", or why you think you understand US politics better than I do.
I'm pointing out that the Urban Dictionary definition cited above is bipartisan.
Slashdot's a lot more varied than that. There are Trump supporters, and Trump isn't libertarian. He appeals to the far right, the nihilists, and the gullible. There's a fair number of us leftists.
I was against violent video games before I started seriously looking at the evidence. They don't see to harm people in general, and some people find them fun. I'm not convinced that the right and the left are united against video games (except for the complaints all my life about anything teens find to do that isn't sex or drugs).
Yeah, and not that long ago I was about to wax eloquent about H-1B visas when I realized nobody in the room was likely to know or care. Slashdot is quite sensitive to issues that affect software developers.
If what you mean to say is that a lot of us have fairly strong opinions, sure. If you're trying to imply any trace of consensus, you're wrong.
And all those who think it's murder and all those who think it's part of health care and should be paid for like other health care should be. I'm fine with my tax dollars going to help people with psoriasis or depression; why not those who need abortions?
As far as gay rights, why would treating them like everybody else cost money? I don't think that oppressing them to improve other people's financial positions would be popular here.
From an intellectual point of view, I agree with you on "offense". You have a perfect right to be offended by what I say, and I have a perfect right to snicker about it. However, if a business gets a lot of offended customers, they're likely to lose a lot of potential revenue. Social media therefore has to try to cut down on the amount of potentially offensive material their customer base sees, or they'll be replaced by another company that does. People who take political opinions much more personally than you or me have money too.
Yup, and those are old established companies without prospects for dramatic improvements in revenue. The stock market can stay irrational for a long time (in the old quote, longer than you can stay solvent).
What should I have learned? I knew pretty much everything you said. I couldn't remember what that 1986 law was called, but you didn't say either.
What I meant is that we have laws that make it very difficult to own automatic weapons, and ban all less than about thirty years old, and extending that to the closest non-automatic equivalents wasn't much of a stretch If I was unclear, I apologize.
Given the wording of the Second, it seems odd to me that I can't buy a modern infantry rifle, and I don't see that the Second should allow AR-15s and not M16A4s.
I wasn't aware that 30 rounds was a standard magazine size for a semi-auto rifle. It seems awfully high. We fought WWII with semi-automatic rifles with eight-round clips. Thirty rounds seems unnecessary for most purposes, and I'd think reducing the magazine size would reduce the weight and make the weapon more manageable.
As I said, the reason given in the Federalist papers was that it wouldn't allow Trump to be President. (Okay, they didn't use his name, but the description was pretty much on.) I think it's Federalist 68. You go read that and find out I'm right and you were wrong in your response to what I said. You're clearly referring to other arguments that I haven't seen documentation on.
It's a matter of scale. Pumped hydro is useless for a power grid unless it can store a whole lot of energy. Moving 500 tons of water up and down 20m isn't going to be significant compared to the demands of a neighborhood. If it were that easy, everybody would be doing it.
Calling someone incompetent when they are is neither vile nor misogyny. It could be a misjudgment, but nothing about Palin ever screamed "competence" to me. Calling Clinton a criminal is not necessarily misogyny, but seems to fall short on the question of evidence. The only real rap against her is the classified material in the email, and I've never seen a plausible argument that she did it deliberately. I haven't found a case of anyone who faced criminal prosecution for non-deliberate mishandling of classified material.
In the union labor action I was closely involved with (as in Mom was in the union), the union was primarily demanding better working conditions, since they managed to more or less agree on the pay. The newspapers presented it as all about the pay, and mentioned only the brackets where management was offering the largest wages.
Remember, most of what mainstream media declares to be fact is. They have their own interpretations, and can be selective about facts.
C'mon. Don't leave us in suspense. Explain who determines "OK" and why nobody pays attention.
Calling Palin incompetent is reasonable, while calling Clinton incompetent isn't.
You do realize that women are actually human, and have normal human variations in things, I hope.
Not in my lifetime, and I'm getting up there. At some point, you really have to stop slinging old insults.
Also, the people who weren't progressives didn't have a great civil rights record either.
You know, I actually looked up your first Wikipedia cite. It's a potential danger you need to consider when posting.
That would be one heck of an impressive water tower.
The Electoral College exists as a result of a compromise with slave states. Slaves and other unfree persons were counted as 3/5 of a free person in allotting House seats, and if the Presidency was a popular vote the slave state people wouldn't get additional power from their slaves.
The reason given in the Federalist Papers, on the other hand, is so they wouldn't allow anyone like Trump to become President.
Clearly, the EC serves none of its original purposes any more.
As far as my utilities go, my water and sewer are provided directly by the city, my electrical and gas and phone connections are regulated monopolies, and my garbage is picked up by private companies hired by the city. All of them work pretty well.
More leverage at the Federal Government level could only be good for them. There are some serious anti-PR laws, such as the Jones Act.
Hispanics are basically religious conservatives, and they tend to vote Democrat. They simply don't feel like the Republicans are willing to accept them.
Even if you're stupid enough to think Hitler or the Nazis were somehow left-wing, a casual reading of the history would show that Hitler achieved power by wooing the right wing, and he became Chancellor because he had support from right-wing authoritarians (who thought they could control him, that didn't work).
No, that's not how manufacturing tolerances work. What tight tolerances mean is that that piston is 75+/-0.001 mm (wash hands after handling the numbers I'm throwing out) and the cylinder there is 75.5+/- 0.001mm wide, leaving precisely a quarter-millimeter gap all around. That's what tight manufacturing tolerances mean. Things that have to be a little loose will still be a little loose, but you will know very precisely how loose.
Or treat it as driver assist. I assume that's possible.
Clinton lied when answering a question that really had no relevance in a trial that was eventually thrown out because the plaintiff's claims didn't add up to anything illegal. The evidence was enough to conclude that he's a real jerk, but that's still legal.
There are some claims about Clinton I find disturbing, but he wasn't on trial for any of those.
Used to be I could rely on NoScript to protect me on the web. I'd look at the list of sites trying to serve me Javascript, and allow the few that were relevant to what I actually want to do on the site. Nowadays, that JS relies on stuff they pull in from other sites with names that tell me nothing, so NoScript isn't that useful anymore. Whitelisting just isn't as useful as it used to be.
I'm not going to speak for ShanghaiBill, but anybody who searches through my Slashdot history will know most of my hobbies, a lot of my interests, my politics and positions on specific issues, and my vagueness on religion (I think I've mentioned that I'm "None of the above" for most lists). I've mentioned the city I live in, and if you assume that "david_thornley" means "David Thornley", I'll tell you up front that you will find one person of that name in that city, whose address and phone number is readily available.
So, go ahead and send that information to anybody. I can ruffle the feathers of lots of people, and often find it an entertaining side effect. My favorite programming languages are C++, Lisp, and Perl, which means I can get into a language flamewar with almost anyone who pays attention to such things. I've been insulted by stupider people than you, Opportunist, although nobody's displaced "black propagandist" as my favorite of the things I've been called, and that's fifteen years old.
You should be able to find my Facebook account, and you're welcome to anything you find there. I don't mark anything as private or restricted deliberately, since I have precisely zero faith in keeping anything on Facebook out of my permanent public record. There are things I don't mention on the net, and I'll leave imagining what they might be as an exercise for the reader.
Now, among what you've got from Slashdot, Facebook, and a log of my HTTP requests, you're not going to find my SSAN, so it will be easier to do identify theft with information from other sources. That, and a few other things, I'm careful about.
Actually, I thought Reagan would make a fine king, although I was dubious about "Ronald I". You left out "Defender of the Seas" or some such phrase, BTW. Any king of the US past, say, 1890, needs something like that in his title.
There's also plenty of bubbles outside the "elite". There's poor rural bubbles, for example, where nobody thinks why things are different in the cities.
The "Left" isn't particularly unified on this. Some leftists would like gun ownership mostly abolished, sure. Lots would like to see weapons like the AR-15 banned, but aren't willing to campaign to ban handguns and hunting rifles. A ban on AR-15 class weapons would be rather similar to the Reagan-era legislation on owning automatic weapons, and IIRC the NRA was in favor of that (can't find references right now, sorry).