So, Goofy Uncle Joe is fine with the Supreme Court being filled with left-wingers and moderates, but we have a problem if anybody right of Karl Marx is nominated? Got it.
"But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination."
Yeah, yeah. What he *meant* was that if a Democrat was coming into office the next year, they should delay. If a Republican were coming in to office, they need to do it right away.
Same way Obama can bomb the shit out of the Middle East for years and it's no big deal. But Trump does the same thing and he's "starting another war in the Middle East!!!"
In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) determines the cost effectiveness, or value, of newly approved drugs based on their impact on quality-adjusted life years. These determinations inform the National Health System's (NHS) treatment-coverage decisions.
In other words, if it's too expensive to treat you and therefore not worth it, they decide you don't get the medicine. This is what folks in the US were referring to as "death panels". They're actually correct, but the reality is that in the US anybody who can't afford the drug is going to die, also.
Is this fact checking going to be like Politifact, which has said that an article or tweet is "mostly false" while saying that the facts it contains are true?
Not only "like" Politifact - Politifact is one of the sources behind the scenes. To be fair, there aren't many options other than the obvious "don't even go down this road".
It was only a matter of time before Tump started another war in the middle east.
Oh bull fucking shit. Obama already had us in Syria. Obama drew an imaginary red line that Bashar wasn't to cross without dire consequences, remember that? That's big talk. Then, Bashar looked him in the eye, firmly planted both feet over his red line and said "your move". Obama tucked his tail between his , making him look like a weak fool (which, by the way, is what he looks like in Asia as well).
Trump, on the other hand, didn't make stupid threats. He bombed the shit out of the specific air field that was used to launch the attack, sending a clear message that you don't cross his red lines and, by the way, he doesn't plan on telling you what they are ahead of time so you might want to watch yourself.
Say what you want about Trump - and there's plenty to say - but this was an absolutely appropriate response. This is what a leader does to get the attention of despots like Bashar.
It's not a crime for a government employee to post to Twitter while working. If it were, Trump would have been impeached multiple times by now.
Trump is President - he can make whatever rules he wants as the executive. I know it sounds like of funny how you said it, but it's also pretty stupid.
That's actually a crime for a federal government worker to do such.
So, as I sit here at McChord Air Force Base in Washington State, in my cushy job as a C17 Mission Planner, you are telling me I'm breaking the law prattling on Slashdot? Is that why we have and Official Social Media Policy that talks about using Social Media on GOV computers? Oh, that's right, you don't work for the government and in fact have no idea what you are talking about.
If you have an official policy that allows you to do it, then it's likely not a problem as long as you stay within the policy. How do you know what the other departments are doing? Also, are the things tweeted from that account allowable under policy?
It's impossible to make a blanket statement either way, but an employer does have a right to know if their employees are doing something not allowed on company time.
Seriously, it's a crime for federal employees to post to Twitter while on the clock?
Someone should tell the president.
The President is the President - he gets to define his job roles. For someone who's working in the federal government, unless posting to Twitter is part of their job description then it would fall under the "honest services fraud" statute. Remember the "3 crimes per day" number? That's part of what we're talking about.
Regardless of whether it's a crime the government - like any employer - has every right to determine if employees are doing personal twitter during working hours and/or from work computers. Sorry if you don't like it.
I'm shocked! Shocked to see the Trump administration abusing criminal investigative tools for political purposes.
Uh, yeah. If they really only want to see if it's an employee doing it on company time, then it's no longer "political". That's actually a crime for a federal government worker to do such. The only real problem would be if it's not a government worker and they harass him - at that point I'll be concerned.
He's apparently a corporatocrat, which makes him just as much of a libertarian as most of the people who call themselves libertarian. Don't like it? Separate yourself from that label to escape the association with all the crypto-corporatocrats hiding among you. Sometimes a label is too tainted and has to be discarded.
I have no idea why you think he's a corporatocrat - that was Hillary Clinton. Libertarianism is at odds with both Clinton and Trump.
I don't think Trump is anything. He doesn't really have any political stances beyond what he thinks the current crowd of people around him want to hear, and when it doubt he just says what is in his brain at the time. The closest label would probably be "contrarian". He's only Republican because that's the party he hung his coat on, but he doesn't subscribe to the existing party platform. He takes some very non-libertarian views, especially if those views will get him votes.
Trump holds a lot of left-wing positions and a lot of right-wing positions. He's used eminent domain extensively, for example (left-wing) and obviously there are plenty of pictures of him palling around with the Clintons and other liberal politicians. He simply does whatever suits him and pushes him ahead. He also panders to the right incessantly with the "pro-police" garbage and all that.
Hillary Clinton was barely tolerated by half of the Democrat voters. That's why Hillary lost. Trump was a barely tolerated candidate among Republicans, but not quite weak enough to be defeated by Hillary Clinton. For example, take a look at her first-amendment positions and you'll see someone who is way to the right of center.
I'm not sure how you're defining the left/right divide, but at this time in history pro-first-amendment is very much a right-wing position and very much not a left-wing position. The left is doing more against free speech every year right now than the right has done in all of history.
When you have a choice between a Republican running as a Democrat and a Libertarian running as a Republican, is it any surprise that the latter wins?
Uh, are you calling Trump a Libertarian?
LOL.
That ringing sound you keep hearing? It's the cluephone. Might want to answer it.
And the reason tuition rates are going up is because of the increase in the money supply in the higher education system, which itself is entirely caused by the increased availability and ease of acquiring of student loans.
That's a big factor. But you're also overlooking that in the last ~25 years, most states have slashed state funding to state universities.
So all these students in the "second tier" of the system are getting a double whammy. These kids would mostly be from what used to be the middle class as opposed to most of those going to an ivy league school.
This myth won't die, will it? The funding for state schools has nothing to do with it.
What I've found in the past when looking at long-term trends is that when state funding of universities doesn't rise, they raise tuition to "make up for it". But when the state funding goes up in the next year or whatever, the tuition never goes back down. So we have a ratchet effect.
State schools are well funded. Like most universities, they're also dramatically overstaffed, with a bunch of burdensome administrative staff members and no more faculty than before. That needs to change.
My only day job was working at Indiana University. One year they went nuts because there was a big cut in state funding. In reality, the state wasn't raising funding at the same level as the year before. We were still getting more money than last year, just not as much more as they wanted.
So we were told no pay raises, can't afford them. The morning that I was to talk to my manager about the pay raise I was walking in when I noticed the workers out front pulling up the flowers in front of our building to plant new ones. So when my manager tried to bullshit me about the "funding cuts" I shushed her and said "You know, it's funny, I *hear* about this lack of money, yet on my way in to work this morning I saw that the university is paying some guys to pull up perfectly beautiful flowers and plant new ones. See, if there really was some sort of budget crisis they wouldn't be pulling up flowers out front, because that doesn't help the university. I, on the other hand, do. So, since we're not acting like there's a budget crisis I'll assume it's made up bullshit and I'll be getting a raise this year." Yes, I was a dick. That was my largest single year raise during my four year tenure there.
Unlikely. If you want to actually stop it, the behavior has to be criminalized - you know, like they do for any law that doesn't involve government workers.
It needs to simply be "Searching an electronic device at the border or anywhere within the US without a warrant shall be a class ___ misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $____ and/or up to 1 year in jail. It shall also create a civil cause of action with damages of at least $10,000 per incident, with each device being a separate incident. No government entity shall indemnify against any such liability."
That's how you actually stop it. It's really not difficult, although I'm sure the border patrol would have a cow. Not that I care what they think.
Because I can get anybody to flip a burger. The problem with tech is that for many companies IT is 24x7x365 but the IT department still expects to act like they are working 8-5. So reality collides with their notions and reality wins.
Unrestrained capitalism is frankly an insane idea.
It's interesting, really. Every time I see some left-winger bitching about the terrible effects of unrestrained capitalism or such they're actually bitching about cronyism
Which part of "disastrous outcomes like rivers catching fire" is about cronyism? You don't need corruption for unrestrained capitalism to be an insane idea. Secondly, why would you exclude cronyism from capitalism when laws and regulations become commodities that can be bought and sold? Cronyism is just a branch of capitalism.
Cronyism is the antithesis of a free market. Capitalism can work quite well without cronyism. And you're creating a false-dichotomy. We can have good regulation, and there are plenty of good regulations out there. But cronyism is never good. We're talking about cronyism.
Unrestrained capitalism is frankly an insane idea.
It's interesting, really. Every time I see some left-winger bitching about the terrible effects of unrestrained capitalism or such they're actually bitching about cronyism, which is a very different beast.
H-1B visas aren't issued by business. They're government interference in a market. In a truly free market (and we're really talking about "free markets" rather than "capitalism") there aren't enough tech people so the salaries go up until more people want to get into the field and it reaches a sort of stasis. In a cronyist environment there aren't enough tech workers and their salaries are too high so the cronyist whines to the government which then allows them to bring people from much poorer countries over at dramatically lower wages to kill two birds with one stone - lower the average salary and have more workers.
Geeze. This is like right-wingers who think that drugs cause street gang violence.
Why not club together with your fellow employees to collectively purchase stock in the company that you work for? That way, you can force issues at the board level when management comes up for re-election.
As I mentioned elsewhere, Publix is employee-owned. Anybody not doing what you suggests doesn't understand ownership.
- Different people from different viewpoints are almost invariably GOOD for an organization. Those that don't have diversity tend to wither and die due to stagnation.
Really? Why don't you give us a single example. I'm making it easy for you: I know there are just thousands of such companies <eyeroll> so surely you can name just one. Right?
Literally, the only way to own Publix stock is to work there. If one of the owners (that's what workers are - they get shares) is circulating a "petition" then they don't understand how ownership in a company works.
Slashdot Mirror
So, Goofy Uncle Joe is fine with the Supreme Court being filled with left-wingers and moderates, but we have a problem if anybody right of Karl Marx is nominated? Got it.
"But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination."
Yeah, yeah. What he *meant* was that if a Democrat was coming into office the next year, they should delay. If a Republican were coming in to office, they need to do it right away.
Same way Obama can bomb the shit out of the Middle East for years and it's no big deal. But Trump does the same thing and he's "starting another war in the Middle East!!!"
In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) determines the cost effectiveness, or value, of newly approved drugs based on their impact on quality-adjusted life years. These determinations inform the National Health System's (NHS) treatment-coverage decisions.
In other words, if it's too expensive to treat you and therefore not worth it, they decide you don't get the medicine. This is what folks in the US were referring to as "death panels". They're actually correct, but the reality is that in the US anybody who can't afford the drug is going to die, also.
Is this fact checking going to be like Politifact, which has said that an article or tweet is "mostly false" while saying that the facts it contains are true?
Not only "like" Politifact - Politifact is one of the sources behind the scenes. To be fair, there aren't many options other than the obvious "don't even go down this road".
It was only a matter of time before Tump started another war in the middle east.
Oh bull fucking shit. Obama already had us in Syria. Obama drew an imaginary red line that Bashar wasn't to cross without dire consequences, remember that? That's big talk. Then, Bashar looked him in the eye, firmly planted both feet over his red line and said "your move". Obama tucked his tail between his , making him look like a weak fool (which, by the way, is what he looks like in Asia as well).
Trump, on the other hand, didn't make stupid threats. He bombed the shit out of the specific air field that was used to launch the attack, sending a clear message that you don't cross his red lines and, by the way, he doesn't plan on telling you what they are ahead of time so you might want to watch yourself.
Say what you want about Trump - and there's plenty to say - but this was an absolutely appropriate response. This is what a leader does to get the attention of despots like Bashar.
You might want to let Uber know about making a bunch of money, because according to their accountants they're losing it at a pretty astounding rate.
It's not a crime for a government employee to post to Twitter while working. If it were, Trump would have been impeached multiple times by now.
Trump is President - he can make whatever rules he wants as the executive. I know it sounds like of funny how you said it, but it's also pretty stupid.
That's actually a crime for a federal government worker to do such.
So, as I sit here at McChord Air Force Base in Washington State, in my cushy job as a C17 Mission Planner, you are telling me I'm breaking the law prattling on Slashdot? Is that why we have and Official Social Media Policy that talks about using Social Media on GOV computers? Oh, that's right, you don't work for the government and in fact have no idea what you are talking about.
If you have an official policy that allows you to do it, then it's likely not a problem as long as you stay within the policy. How do you know what the other departments are doing? Also, are the things tweeted from that account allowable under policy?
It's impossible to make a blanket statement either way, but an employer does have a right to know if their employees are doing something not allowed on company time.
Seriously, it's a crime for federal employees to post to Twitter while on the clock?
Someone should tell the president.
The President is the President - he gets to define his job roles. For someone who's working in the federal government, unless posting to Twitter is part of their job description then it would fall under the "honest services fraud" statute. Remember the "3 crimes per day" number? That's part of what we're talking about.
Regardless of whether it's a crime the government - like any employer - has every right to determine if employees are doing personal twitter during working hours and/or from work computers. Sorry if you don't like it.
I'm shocked! Shocked to see the Trump administration abusing criminal investigative tools for political purposes.
Uh, yeah. If they really only want to see if it's an employee doing it on company time, then it's no longer "political". That's actually a crime for a federal government worker to do such. The only real problem would be if it's not a government worker and they harass him - at that point I'll be concerned.
Uh, are you calling Trump a Libertarian?
LOL.
He's apparently a corporatocrat, which makes him just as much of a libertarian as most of the people who call themselves libertarian. Don't like it? Separate yourself from that label to escape the association with all the crypto-corporatocrats hiding among you. Sometimes a label is too tainted and has to be discarded.
I have no idea why you think he's a corporatocrat - that was Hillary Clinton. Libertarianism is at odds with both Clinton and Trump.
I don't think Trump is anything. He doesn't really have any political stances beyond what he thinks the current crowd of people around him want to hear, and when it doubt he just says what is in his brain at the time. The closest label would probably be "contrarian". He's only Republican because that's the party he hung his coat on, but he doesn't subscribe to the existing party platform. He takes some very non-libertarian views, especially if those views will get him votes.
Trump holds a lot of left-wing positions and a lot of right-wing positions. He's used eminent domain extensively, for example (left-wing) and obviously there are plenty of pictures of him palling around with the Clintons and other liberal politicians. He simply does whatever suits him and pushes him ahead. He also panders to the right incessantly with the "pro-police" garbage and all that.
Hillary Clinton was barely tolerated by half of the Democrat voters. That's why Hillary lost. Trump was a barely tolerated candidate among Republicans, but not quite weak enough to be defeated by Hillary Clinton. For example, take a look at her first-amendment positions and you'll see someone who is way to the right of center.
I'm not sure how you're defining the left/right divide, but at this time in history pro-first-amendment is very much a right-wing position and very much not a left-wing position. The left is doing more against free speech every year right now than the right has done in all of history.
When you have a choice between a Republican running as a Democrat and a Libertarian running as a Republican, is it any surprise that the latter wins?
Uh, are you calling Trump a Libertarian?
LOL.
That ringing sound you keep hearing? It's the cluephone. Might want to answer it.
And the reason tuition rates are going up is because of the increase in the money supply in the higher education system, which itself is entirely caused by the increased availability and ease of acquiring of student loans.
That's a big factor. But you're also overlooking that in the last ~25 years, most states have slashed state funding to state universities.
So all these students in the "second tier" of the system are getting a double whammy. These kids would mostly be from what used to be the middle class as opposed to most of those going to an ivy league school.
This myth won't die, will it? The funding for state schools has nothing to do with it.
https://www.insidehighered.com...
What I've found in the past when looking at long-term trends is that when state funding of universities doesn't rise, they raise tuition to "make up for it". But when the state funding goes up in the next year or whatever, the tuition never goes back down. So we have a ratchet effect.
State schools are well funded. Like most universities, they're also dramatically overstaffed, with a bunch of burdensome administrative staff members and no more faculty than before. That needs to change.
My only day job was working at Indiana University. One year they went nuts because there was a big cut in state funding. In reality, the state wasn't raising funding at the same level as the year before. We were still getting more money than last year, just not as much more as they wanted.
So we were told no pay raises, can't afford them. The morning that I was to talk to my manager about the pay raise I was walking in when I noticed the workers out front pulling up the flowers in front of our building to plant new ones. So when my manager tried to bullshit me about the "funding cuts" I shushed her and said "You know, it's funny, I *hear* about this lack of money, yet on my way in to work this morning I saw that the university is paying some guys to pull up perfectly beautiful flowers and plant new ones. See, if there really was some sort of budget crisis they wouldn't be pulling up flowers out front, because that doesn't help the university. I, on the other hand, do. So, since we're not acting like there's a budget crisis I'll assume it's made up bullshit and I'll be getting a raise this year." Yes, I was a dick. That was my largest single year raise during my four year tenure there.
I know a thing or two about this subject.
Unlikely. If you want to actually stop it, the behavior has to be criminalized - you know, like they do for any law that doesn't involve government workers.
It needs to simply be "Searching an electronic device at the border or anywhere within the US without a warrant shall be a class ___ misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $____ and/or up to 1 year in jail. It shall also create a civil cause of action with damages of at least $10,000 per incident, with each device being a separate incident. No government entity shall indemnify against any such liability."
That's how you actually stop it. It's really not difficult, although I'm sure the border patrol would have a cow. Not that I care what they think.
Step 1: Buy a company for it's brand recognition.
Step 2: Don't use the company's brand.
Step 3: ?????
Step 4: Writedown.
Step 5. Write a new book on turd polishing and cash in big time.
Because I can get anybody to flip a burger. The problem with tech is that for many companies IT is 24x7x365 but the IT department still expects to act like they are working 8-5. So reality collides with their notions and reality wins.
Unrestrained capitalism is frankly an insane idea.
It's interesting, really. Every time I see some left-winger bitching about the terrible effects of unrestrained capitalism or such they're actually bitching about cronyism
Which part of "disastrous outcomes like rivers catching fire" is about cronyism? You don't need corruption for unrestrained capitalism to be an insane idea. Secondly, why would you exclude cronyism from capitalism when laws and regulations become commodities that can be bought and sold? Cronyism is just a branch of capitalism.
Cronyism is the antithesis of a free market. Capitalism can work quite well without cronyism. And you're creating a false-dichotomy. We can have good regulation, and there are plenty of good regulations out there. But cronyism is never good. We're talking about cronyism.
Unrestrained capitalism is frankly an insane idea.
It's interesting, really. Every time I see some left-winger bitching about the terrible effects of unrestrained capitalism or such they're actually bitching about cronyism, which is a very different beast.
H-1B visas aren't issued by business. They're government interference in a market. In a truly free market (and we're really talking about "free markets" rather than "capitalism") there aren't enough tech people so the salaries go up until more people want to get into the field and it reaches a sort of stasis. In a cronyist environment there aren't enough tech workers and their salaries are too high so the cronyist whines to the government which then allows them to bring people from much poorer countries over at dramatically lower wages to kill two birds with one stone - lower the average salary and have more workers.
Geeze. This is like right-wingers who think that drugs cause street gang violence.
It's been covered at Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...
I just show up 20 minutes after the movie is supposed to start - typically don't have to watch more than 5 minutes of commercials that way.
Doesn't work on a Star Wars movie or whatever, but it does work for most movies.
Why not club together with your fellow employees to collectively purchase stock in the company that you work for? That way, you can force issues at the board level when management comes up for re-election.
As I mentioned elsewhere, Publix is employee-owned. Anybody not doing what you suggests doesn't understand ownership.
- Different people from different viewpoints are almost invariably GOOD for an organization. Those that don't have diversity tend to wither and die due to stagnation.
Really? Why don't you give us a single example. I'm making it easy for you: I know there are just thousands of such companies <eyeroll> so surely you can name just one. Right?
Literally, the only way to own Publix stock is to work there. If one of the owners (that's what workers are - they get shares) is circulating a "petition" then they don't understand how ownership in a company works.
I applaud the Republicans who didn't vote for this
Well you are applauding for no one, every republican voted to approve it.
See above - there were 15 Republicans who voted "NO".