Would you care to explain your use of "deplorables"? That was a Hillary Clinton quote taken partly out of context, and for some people it has established itself as an indelible stain on the left wing (which Clinton was not part of), despite all the other insults in the political process. Trump, for example, threw insults around like they were hot potatoes.
This is not, and never was, a reaction to "deplorables". "Deplorables" is an excuse for something deeper and uglier.
The other reason criminals don't have nukes is that they're useless for most criminal activity. They're no good for taking out the guy on the block who's not paying protection money. It's hard to hold up someone with a nuke. They aren't good for defense in gunfights, because you can't take out someone in handgun or spray-and-pray range without harming yourself.
Consider the 1982 Falklands/Malvinas war. The British had nukes and delivery systems. It didn't make a bit of difference in the war or the negotiations.
There are very occasional circumstances when it's a really really good idea to start up the car and get away fast. The first time something bad happens when the driver has to sit through the mandatory ads, there will be not only a lawsuit, but a hue and cry. If car companies try doing this, it will be illegal very soon.
Technically, it is a minor safety issue. My car has an SOS button on the ceiling. (They ran out of other places to put buttons.) If I get into a crash, the car will notify someone who will call 911 if I don't respond. Having the car know where it is at all times does improve my safety to some extent.
In the US, the car is sometimes the only private place someone has. Others won't trust a clean car to arrive in time. There will be a demand for buying cars for a long time to come. The only way to prevent that would be to pass a law against it. You thought people with guns fought hard against gun law changes? There's lots more car owners than gun owners.
Russians hacked the election. Trump has business ties to Russia, which I don't believe he's divested himself of. Trump asked the Russians to release hacked emails. Trump's associates have had innocent-looking dealings with Russians, then lied about them. That's evidence, and Mueller's investigation is still proceeding. Those are facts. Given them, it's reasonable to conclude that there may have been collusion.
Not long ago, people like you were deriding people who thought the Russians had interfered with the election. You're moving the goalposts now.
In other words, the #1 lie isn't a lie? It's that a private organization you aren't involved with didn't act as you thought they should?
And, of course, there never was "the primary". There has been no credible suggestion that the vote totals were hacked. Sanders did better in caucus states, where it would be easier to rig the delegate selection process.
The MSM rarely gets facts wrong, and usually retracts them when they do. Quotes are generally accurate (although can be edited). Statements of plain fact are generally accurate. Note that "X gave Y $5K in cash" is a plain fact, but "X paid off Y for Z" is partly an interpretation. Also, if the MSM doesn't cover a story, that by itself doesn't mean it isn't happening. Selection of facts is always biased, no matter what the source.
It at least used to be that, if you left not too long after it started, you could ask for and likely get a refund.
However, we're not seeing discussions of the relative merits of Thor: Ragnarok versus Captain America: Civil War vs. Wonder Woman here. We're seeing people who don't like an entire genre of movies. There are also reviews. I usually know whether I'm going to like a movie before I go. It isn't a perfect system, but it works well enough.
I'm well aware of my PCP's abilities, and I don't want a NP deciding my best blood pressure (my neurologist wants it higher than my PCP). However, there are cases where I go in and it's a matter of getting the right lab tests and it's straightforward from there. Some of that I could do myself if I had access to the lab and could write prescriptions.
No, we haven't had the tech since 1968. In 1968, we could not build an adequate robot miner, nor could we support a human in space that long. We're still trying to figure exactly how to send humans on long journeys outside Earth's magnetosphere, and even with that protection it's bad for the human. In 1968, we could have sent an object to an iron asteroid, and we could have gotten some data from it. That's about the limit.
There's also the question of what we do after we mine the iron to get it somewhere useful.
The laws of thermodynamics apply everywhere. There are indeed energy requirements for what is proposed, and I would recommend staying within a few AU of, say, a G-class star in order to gather the energy.
By your reasoning, sleazy businesses would not be held to laws like less sleazy businesses. I think we need the law applying to the sleazy businesses more than the non-sleazy.
I installed an adblocker on my phone because I couldn't use sites. Anywhere I put my finger, I had a large chance of hitting an ad rather than, say, being able to scroll.
The licensed engineer passed a test to get licensed (probably.) This does not prove anything about the bridge. Only about their ability to take tests.
Frequently, designs have to be signed by a professional engineer with a license. The requirements for PE are usually enough to filter out the less competent, but the license has another use.
Companies like to cut costs. They're often willing to accept a 1% chance that a bridge will collapse within ten years if they can save money. The PE is responsible for stopping that, at least in the design phase. If the PE didn't need a license, the company might just go out and find an unscrupulous PE. However, screwing up here can cost the PE his or her license, and that ends that career. The company can look for an unscrupulous PE, but even the slimiest PE knows that he or she needs the license to make the money.
Not that long ago, I was talking to a surgeon about possible messing around with a blood vessel near my brain. I know someone who needed major hip reconstruction after cancer surgery. I'm going to suggest that NPs are not qualified to do those things.
On the other hand, my primary care doctor has done stuff that required some specialized knowledge, not a lot, and I think NPs can do some of what he did.
So, I'm not considering them equivalent, but some current medical functions can be safely done by NPs.
A friend of mine was once thinking of opening a microbrewery. He called the appropriate state inspector and asked about cleanliness requirements. The inspector laughed, and said that if he let up on it his beer would be undrinkable long before it was dangerous.
Licensing is enforcing education for a profession, and sometimes to increase accountability. As it happens, some harm is irreparable, and suing the perp afterwards doesn't solve things, even if the perp has money. This is one of the things libertarians often seem to overlook.
For example, a cosmetologist uses chemicals that can really mess up a client. Therefore, we want the cosmetologist to get some training to use these chemicals, and demonstrate the ability to use them without blinding clients or destroying their scalps. If a cosmetologist is incompetent, we want to have a way to prevent him or her from practicing it again, and the way we do that is through licensing. (Judges can put arbitrary restrictions on probation, since the defendant can always avoid them by going to jail, but they can't toss arbitrary provisions into a sentence.)
Cosmetologists get up close and personal with people's skin, and can observe damage. This is not an attempt to push a social agenda, it's an attempt to get better reporting on domestic violence, which is often hidden. Detecting crimes may not be a natural part of a cosmetologist's job, but it isn't a social agenda either.
On the other hand, since you appear to object to police departments investigating when an officer shoots someone, or holding an officer accountable when the officer just blows someone away, you may consider preventing crime a social agenda.
In other words, once you've trained them, you don't give them what they're probably worth (salary is big here, but there are other factors), so they have to go elsewhere.
The workers blaming the companies for making them disloyal I can understand but actually no one is making you disloyal it is your choice.
Um, huh? Loyalty isn't always good. It can be misplaced. It typically implies that something good is likely to happen for the loyal person, so loyalty typically has its rewards.
In the case we're discussing, a company doesn't have loyal employees because it doesn't show any loyalty to them. The employees are not actually disloyal, they're just not loyal. They put in a good job to get their pay, and that's as far as it goes. If a company isn't going to treat them well for being loyal, why bother? Find another company with a better deal.
Where I work, we do have loyalty down (at least in my part of the company). We don't get rid of people for a temporary financial gain. We offer career paths. We understand that screw-ups happen. We expect employees to put family first. The result is really low turnover and (eventually) experienced employees.
Now, exactly how long this is going to last is an interesting question. It isn't entirely relevant to me, since the culture's not likely to go bad before I was going to retire (and if it does, I'll just retire - and also sell my company stock, because I won't see that as a good sign for growth and profitability). Publicly held companies are never completely trustworthy.
The H-1B program was ostensibly intended to bring in people that had abilities we just didn't have in the US. I'd say that, if a person with an H-1B visa could be replaced with a US citizen with two years of training, that person shouldn't have gotten an H-1B.
Trump at least proposed once that H-1Bs be allocated by offered salary, not lottery, to keep out the low-end H-1Bs.
You need to take into account some of the subterfuges that companies pull. Some Disney employees were replaced by low-cost H-1Bs they had to train when Disney hired a company to provide IT services who already had cheap people on abused visas. A company can create a new job title, advertise with impossible requirements and low salary, claim no US applicants qualify, and then apply for H-1Bs, so there are no US people with the same job title.
Infosys seems to be trying something new. They hired junior developers from the US for an office in Indianapolis, trained them, and intend to use them on projects. The rumor I got was that they were worried about the future of bringing in hordes of cheap H-1Bs (pretty much the only thing Trump has done that I whole-heartedly approve of), and wanted US citizens and residents on board.
Lots of the Marvel characters have mutant powers, sure, however impossible. However, there are exceptions. Doctor Strange studied magic, and became extremely good at it. A few characters are the product of scientific experiments (Captain America, Black Widow, Winter Soldier) where the science has been lost. Some are gods from elsewhere (Thor, Loki). More to the point, Iron Man is nothing more than an unstable narcissistic supergenius with an alcohol problem and superscience. Vision is the product of Iron Man's meddling with superscience. It's just as vital a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe as helicarriers, maybe more.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you care to explain your use of "deplorables"? That was a Hillary Clinton quote taken partly out of context, and for some people it has established itself as an indelible stain on the left wing (which Clinton was not part of), despite all the other insults in the political process. Trump, for example, threw insults around like they were hot potatoes.
This is not, and never was, a reaction to "deplorables". "Deplorables" is an excuse for something deeper and uglier.
The other reason criminals don't have nukes is that they're useless for most criminal activity. They're no good for taking out the guy on the block who's not paying protection money. It's hard to hold up someone with a nuke. They aren't good for defense in gunfights, because you can't take out someone in handgun or spray-and-pray range without harming yourself.
Consider the 1982 Falklands/Malvinas war. The British had nukes and delivery systems. It didn't make a bit of difference in the war or the negotiations.
There are very occasional circumstances when it's a really really good idea to start up the car and get away fast. The first time something bad happens when the driver has to sit through the mandatory ads, there will be not only a lawsuit, but a hue and cry. If car companies try doing this, it will be illegal very soon.
Technically, it is a minor safety issue. My car has an SOS button on the ceiling. (They ran out of other places to put buttons.) If I get into a crash, the car will notify someone who will call 911 if I don't respond. Having the car know where it is at all times does improve my safety to some extent.
In the US, the car is sometimes the only private place someone has. Others won't trust a clean car to arrive in time. There will be a demand for buying cars for a long time to come. The only way to prevent that would be to pass a law against it. You thought people with guns fought hard against gun law changes? There's lots more car owners than gun owners.
Russians hacked the election. Trump has business ties to Russia, which I don't believe he's divested himself of. Trump asked the Russians to release hacked emails. Trump's associates have had innocent-looking dealings with Russians, then lied about them. That's evidence, and Mueller's investigation is still proceeding. Those are facts. Given them, it's reasonable to conclude that there may have been collusion.
Not long ago, people like you were deriding people who thought the Russians had interfered with the election. You're moving the goalposts now.
In other words, the #1 lie isn't a lie? It's that a private organization you aren't involved with didn't act as you thought they should?
And, of course, there never was "the primary". There has been no credible suggestion that the vote totals were hacked. Sanders did better in caucus states, where it would be easier to rig the delegate selection process.
The MSM rarely gets facts wrong, and usually retracts them when they do. Quotes are generally accurate (although can be edited). Statements of plain fact are generally accurate. Note that "X gave Y $5K in cash" is a plain fact, but "X paid off Y for Z" is partly an interpretation. Also, if the MSM doesn't cover a story, that by itself doesn't mean it isn't happening. Selection of facts is always biased, no matter what the source.
It at least used to be that, if you left not too long after it started, you could ask for and likely get a refund.
However, we're not seeing discussions of the relative merits of Thor: Ragnarok versus Captain America: Civil War vs. Wonder Woman here. We're seeing people who don't like an entire genre of movies. There are also reviews. I usually know whether I'm going to like a movie before I go. It isn't a perfect system, but it works well enough.
I'm well aware of my PCP's abilities, and I don't want a NP deciding my best blood pressure (my neurologist wants it higher than my PCP). However, there are cases where I go in and it's a matter of getting the right lab tests and it's straightforward from there. Some of that I could do myself if I had access to the lab and could write prescriptions.
No, we haven't had the tech since 1968. In 1968, we could not build an adequate robot miner, nor could we support a human in space that long. We're still trying to figure exactly how to send humans on long journeys outside Earth's magnetosphere, and even with that protection it's bad for the human. In 1968, we could have sent an object to an iron asteroid, and we could have gotten some data from it. That's about the limit.
There's also the question of what we do after we mine the iron to get it somewhere useful.
The laws of thermodynamics apply everywhere. There are indeed energy requirements for what is proposed, and I would recommend staying within a few AU of, say, a G-class star in order to gather the energy.
"Loser pays" is rare (or nonexistent) in the US, common in other countries.
By your reasoning, sleazy businesses would not be held to laws like less sleazy businesses. I think we need the law applying to the sleazy businesses more than the non-sleazy.
I installed an adblocker on my phone because I couldn't use sites. Anywhere I put my finger, I had a large chance of hitting an ad rather than, say, being able to scroll.
Frequently, designs have to be signed by a professional engineer with a license. The requirements for PE are usually enough to filter out the less competent, but the license has another use.
Companies like to cut costs. They're often willing to accept a 1% chance that a bridge will collapse within ten years if they can save money. The PE is responsible for stopping that, at least in the design phase. If the PE didn't need a license, the company might just go out and find an unscrupulous PE. However, screwing up here can cost the PE his or her license, and that ends that career. The company can look for an unscrupulous PE, but even the slimiest PE knows that he or she needs the license to make the money.
Not that long ago, I was talking to a surgeon about possible messing around with a blood vessel near my brain. I know someone who needed major hip reconstruction after cancer surgery. I'm going to suggest that NPs are not qualified to do those things.
On the other hand, my primary care doctor has done stuff that required some specialized knowledge, not a lot, and I think NPs can do some of what he did.
So, I'm not considering them equivalent, but some current medical functions can be safely done by NPs.
A friend of mine was once thinking of opening a microbrewery. He called the appropriate state inspector and asked about cleanliness requirements. The inspector laughed, and said that if he let up on it his beer would be undrinkable long before it was dangerous.
Licensing is enforcing education for a profession, and sometimes to increase accountability. As it happens, some harm is irreparable, and suing the perp afterwards doesn't solve things, even if the perp has money. This is one of the things libertarians often seem to overlook.
For example, a cosmetologist uses chemicals that can really mess up a client. Therefore, we want the cosmetologist to get some training to use these chemicals, and demonstrate the ability to use them without blinding clients or destroying their scalps. If a cosmetologist is incompetent, we want to have a way to prevent him or her from practicing it again, and the way we do that is through licensing. (Judges can put arbitrary restrictions on probation, since the defendant can always avoid them by going to jail, but they can't toss arbitrary provisions into a sentence.)
Cosmetologists get up close and personal with people's skin, and can observe damage. This is not an attempt to push a social agenda, it's an attempt to get better reporting on domestic violence, which is often hidden. Detecting crimes may not be a natural part of a cosmetologist's job, but it isn't a social agenda either.
On the other hand, since you appear to object to police departments investigating when an officer shoots someone, or holding an officer accountable when the officer just blows someone away, you may consider preventing crime a social agenda.
In other words, once you've trained them, you don't give them what they're probably worth (salary is big here, but there are other factors), so they have to go elsewhere.
Um, huh? Loyalty isn't always good. It can be misplaced. It typically implies that something good is likely to happen for the loyal person, so loyalty typically has its rewards.
In the case we're discussing, a company doesn't have loyal employees because it doesn't show any loyalty to them. The employees are not actually disloyal, they're just not loyal. They put in a good job to get their pay, and that's as far as it goes. If a company isn't going to treat them well for being loyal, why bother? Find another company with a better deal.
Where I work, we do have loyalty down (at least in my part of the company). We don't get rid of people for a temporary financial gain. We offer career paths. We understand that screw-ups happen. We expect employees to put family first. The result is really low turnover and (eventually) experienced employees.
Now, exactly how long this is going to last is an interesting question. It isn't entirely relevant to me, since the culture's not likely to go bad before I was going to retire (and if it does, I'll just retire - and also sell my company stock, because I won't see that as a good sign for growth and profitability). Publicly held companies are never completely trustworthy.
The H-1B program was ostensibly intended to bring in people that had abilities we just didn't have in the US. I'd say that, if a person with an H-1B visa could be replaced with a US citizen with two years of training, that person shouldn't have gotten an H-1B.
Trump at least proposed once that H-1Bs be allocated by offered salary, not lottery, to keep out the low-end H-1Bs.
You need to take into account some of the subterfuges that companies pull. Some Disney employees were replaced by low-cost H-1Bs they had to train when Disney hired a company to provide IT services who already had cheap people on abused visas. A company can create a new job title, advertise with impossible requirements and low salary, claim no US applicants qualify, and then apply for H-1Bs, so there are no US people with the same job title.
Infosys seems to be trying something new. They hired junior developers from the US for an office in Indianapolis, trained them, and intend to use them on projects. The rumor I got was that they were worried about the future of bringing in hordes of cheap H-1Bs (pretty much the only thing Trump has done that I whole-heartedly approve of), and wanted US citizens and residents on board.
Lots of the Marvel characters have mutant powers, sure, however impossible. However, there are exceptions. Doctor Strange studied magic, and became extremely good at it. A few characters are the product of scientific experiments (Captain America, Black Widow, Winter Soldier) where the science has been lost. Some are gods from elsewhere (Thor, Loki). More to the point, Iron Man is nothing more than an unstable narcissistic supergenius with an alcohol problem and superscience. Vision is the product of Iron Man's meddling with superscience. It's just as vital a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe as helicarriers, maybe more.