It's funny, because I actually see ads on Facebook sometimes, but I've never responded to any. Well, except for hiding ads that I found offensive. I find Facebook to be fine for my uses.
It is? But that one judge told Trump he wasn't allowed to block people because it limited their access to official presidential communications. Are you saying those people that are blocked were still free to see Trump's tweets?
Yes, they were free to see his tweets. All they had to do is log out or open a browser window in private/incognito mode. It's not difficult.
He uses an unsecure phone for Twitter, not phone calls. The stuff he types into that phone is public knowledge.
The issue is that he's carrying around an unsecure device that has GPS, a microphone, and a camera, and those items can turn it into a surveillance tool if the phone is hacked. That is a legit concern, but as long as he's not using it for phone calls at least the attack surface is smaller.
The "why" is the obesity epidemic. Basically, we reached the point where the country is so wealthy that even poor people are morbidly obese (and, in fact, more likely to be so) which leads to earlier death.
As has been pointed out time and time again, the US also counts every single live birth toward its statistics of life expectancy. Other countries have different standards, and newborns who don't live for at least a few days might not be counted. Adding in what is essentially "0" to your average tends to pull it down. This also is the cause the the high infant mortality rate in the US:
My kids just bought an N64 and a bunch of controllers and games off eBay to replace the one that their mom insisted they "donate" to a poor family 8 or 9 years ago. Basically, the games now cost as much or more than they did when new.
Yep. Why don't you start by sharing some of your wealth with an African nation?
Oh, yeah, forgot, you only want to share other people's wealth. I forgot how looney left socialists think.
I do. And if you and the GP live in the US (or many other countries), so do you. Here's what countries the US gives foreign aid to. I'm not saying the current foreign aid structure is good, but the GP is definitely sharing some their wealth with African nations.
That's still "other people's money". I want to see his bank account redistributed to the less fortunate - then I'll be impressed. The US spends $35B on foreign aid according to that article. That's $100/person/year. Nothing. I'm sure he could cough up a few grand right now and after selling some possessions probably more than that.
See, it's really easy to give away other people's money, especially when they're "rich". If you live in the US right now, you are almost certainly "rich" compared to most of the world. If you make $30,000/year you're already better off than the average person in the lowest 50 countries:
Nigeria is $2450/year. That's less than 1/5th the US minimum wage.
This is the problem with wanting to take from "the rich" and give to "the poor". The people saying that are always "rich" to someone else. They want the cut off line to be somewhere above their personal income.
rather than demand the continuation of exhausting and physically demanding work instead of automation you should be demanding the wealth generated by automation and civilization be evenly distributed.
Of course can't have that since it's the socialisms...
Yep. Why don't you start by sharing some of your wealth with an African nation?
Oh, yeah, forgot, you only want to share other people's wealth. I forgot how looney left socialists think.
Re-training to what? What is that magical low-skill job that isn't going to be replaced by robots soon?
Hard to say. Imagine asking people 100 years ago - when 95% of labor was agricultural - what people would do when farming was largely automated and only 5% of workers would be in the agricultural sector. They would have no idea.
Wealth inequality is a left-wing dogwhistle for hating the rich. Nothing more. It doesn't hurt you if someone has more money - what matters is how much you have.
If you think rich people hurt you, consider that you are rich (I don't care how much you have - if you live in the US right now you're rich) compared to most of the people in the world and definitely most throughout history. Is *your* wealth hurting others?
If you live in the United States making $30,000/year you are already among the richest of people who have ever lived, and still probably within the 1% globally. We are already living in the best economy that's ever existed - there's nothing to fix except people living within their means.
I spoke with Rob a couple of times back in the internet fame days. We could talk for an hour without realizing the time had passed, such a gentleman and all around great person. He will be missed. My condolences to his family and those close to him. At least the world is a better place for his having lived here for so long.
That was my thought. If someone will quit for $600 over the course of a few months, wouldnâ(TM)t they quit, anyway? Thatâ(TM)s less than theyâ(TM)ll save by not buying cigarettes.
It's included because those dollars are in fact spent, and do in fact end up in people's pockets.
Correct. I should have mentioned that the proper way to handle it isn't to remove government spending but instead to subtract government deficit spending. In other words, if you do a trillion dollar stimulus package and it's financed by debt, it ends up as a wash. If the debt is later paid down (I know, LOL), the money would show up then. It shows up twice if both are part of the GDP.
To give a simpler example, let's say I make $100,000/year. My household income is $100,000/year. This year I run up $20,000 in credit card debt. So, my household income is $120,000, right? That's what adding the money to the GDP looks like. My household income is still $100,000/year. If I pay the credit card off next year, my income is still $100,000, but effectively it's $80,000 (ignoring interest). Since debt payments aren't subtracted from the GDP, the numbers would be $120,000 and $100,000, which is clearly wrong. It would be correct to say $100,000 and $100,000 or $120,000 and $80,000. We mix and match to make the numbers look better.
Right. The guy has such a crazy view of himself. It's not like he's a billionaire, or President of the US, or married a supermodel or something like that.
Oh, wait. He did all three.
You might want to take a look in the mirror with your silly "psychology" bullshit.
He's the head of the executive branch, which is the equivalent of a CEO. He absolutely has the power to ignore directives such as this. I'm not saying I think he's doing the right thing, but he can do it if he wants.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a toxic brand
To leftist lunatics. To us normal people, it's a company that makes agricultural products.
Interesting how a purely factual post is modded "troll". TDS must be painful.
It's funny, because I actually see ads on Facebook sometimes, but I've never responded to any. Well, except for hiding ads that I found offensive. I find Facebook to be fine for my uses.
It is? But that one judge told Trump he wasn't allowed to block people because it limited their access to official presidential communications. Are you saying those people that are blocked were still free to see Trump's tweets?
Yes, they were free to see his tweets. All they had to do is log out or open a browser window in private/incognito mode. It's not difficult.
He uses an unsecure phone for Twitter, not phone calls. The stuff he types into that phone is public knowledge.
The issue is that he's carrying around an unsecure device that has GPS, a microphone, and a camera, and those items can turn it into a surveillance tool if the phone is hacked. That is a legit concern, but as long as he's not using it for phone calls at least the attack surface is smaller.
The Republicans ran a number of young candidates last time. It's the Democrats who look like a nursing home left the door unlocked.
The "why" is the obesity epidemic. Basically, we reached the point where the country is so wealthy that even poor people are morbidly obese (and, in fact, more likely to be so) which leads to earlier death.
As has been pointed out time and time again, the US also counts every single live birth toward its statistics of life expectancy. Other countries have different standards, and newborns who don't live for at least a few days might not be counted. Adding in what is essentially "0" to your average tends to pull it down. This also is the cause the the high infant mortality rate in the US:
https://www.nationalreview.com...
My kids just bought an N64 and a bunch of controllers and games off eBay to replace the one that their mom insisted they "donate" to a poor family 8 or 9 years ago. Basically, the games now cost as much or more than they did when new.
Note to mods: this is "informative", not "funny".
All the claims about being the first everything are a bit suspect, too. I'm pretty sure the TI-994a beat them to voice in video games.
Geese, phone plus auto correct. Better job security cannot be quantified.
Read both. âoeBetter job s Curitibaâ cannot be quantified. Wages can. The question remains.
Yep. Why don't you start by sharing some of your wealth with an African nation?
Oh, yeah, forgot, you only want to share other people's wealth. I forgot how looney left socialists think.
I do. And if you and the GP live in the US (or many other countries), so do you. Here's what countries the US gives foreign aid to. I'm not saying the current foreign aid structure is good, but the GP is definitely sharing some their wealth with African nations.
That's still "other people's money". I want to see his bank account redistributed to the less fortunate - then I'll be impressed. The US spends $35B on foreign aid according to that article. That's $100/person/year. Nothing. I'm sure he could cough up a few grand right now and after selling some possessions probably more than that.
See, it's really easy to give away other people's money, especially when they're "rich". If you live in the US right now, you are almost certainly "rich" compared to most of the world. If you make $30,000/year you're already better off than the average person in the lowest 50 countries:
https://www.worlddata.info/ave...
Nigeria is $2450/year. That's less than 1/5th the US minimum wage.
This is the problem with wanting to take from "the rich" and give to "the poor". The people saying that are always "rich" to someone else. They want the cut off line to be somewhere above their personal income.
rather than demand the continuation of exhausting and physically demanding work instead of automation you should be demanding the wealth generated by automation and civilization be evenly distributed.
Of course can't have that since it's the socialisms...
Yep. Why don't you start by sharing some of your wealth with an African nation?
Oh, yeah, forgot, you only want to share other people's wealth. I forgot how looney left socialists think.
Yeah, but what are they striking against? What is the outcome or promise that'll placate them?
Re-training to what? What is that magical low-skill job that isn't going to be replaced by robots soon?
Hard to say. Imagine asking people 100 years ago - when 95% of labor was agricultural - what people would do when farming was largely automated and only 5% of workers would be in the agricultural sector. They would have no idea.
Why do you think we would be different?
Wealth inequality is a left-wing dogwhistle for hating the rich. Nothing more. It doesn't hurt you if someone has more money - what matters is how much you have.
If you think rich people hurt you, consider that you are rich (I don't care how much you have - if you live in the US right now you're rich) compared to most of the people in the world and definitely most throughout history. Is *your* wealth hurting others?
If you live in the United States making $30,000/year you are already among the richest of people who have ever lived, and still probably within the 1% globally. We are already living in the best economy that's ever existed - there's nothing to fix except people living within their means.
I spoke with Rob a couple of times back in the internet fame days. We could talk for an hour without realizing the time had passed, such a gentleman and all around great person. He will be missed. My condolences to his family and those close to him. At least the world is a better place for his having lived here for so long.
That was my thought. If someone will quit for $600 over the course of a few months, wouldnâ(TM)t they quit, anyway? Thatâ(TM)s less than theyâ(TM)ll save by not buying cigarettes.
A "treaty" is something that Congress approves. Can you point to an actual "treaty" involving Iran?
(Clue: no)
He also won the electoral college vote. And, that is the one that matters.
We are talking about legal duties. You can vote him out if you think heâ(TM)s doing a bad job.
It's included because those dollars are in fact spent, and do in fact end up in people's pockets.
Correct. I should have mentioned that the proper way to handle it isn't to remove government spending but instead to subtract government deficit spending. In other words, if you do a trillion dollar stimulus package and it's financed by debt, it ends up as a wash. If the debt is later paid down (I know, LOL), the money would show up then. It shows up twice if both are part of the GDP.
To give a simpler example, let's say I make $100,000/year. My household income is $100,000/year. This year I run up $20,000 in credit card debt. So, my household income is $120,000, right? That's what adding the money to the GDP looks like. My household income is still $100,000/year. If I pay the credit card off next year, my income is still $100,000, but effectively it's $80,000 (ignoring interest). Since debt payments aren't subtracted from the GDP, the numbers would be $120,000 and $100,000, which is clearly wrong. It would be correct to say $100,000 and $100,000 or $120,000 and $80,000. We mix and match to make the numbers look better.
Right. The guy has such a crazy view of himself. It's not like he's a billionaire, or President of the US, or married a supermodel or something like that.
Oh, wait. He did all three.
You might want to take a look in the mirror with your silly "psychology" bullshit.
He's the head of the executive branch, which is the equivalent of a CEO. He absolutely has the power to ignore directives such as this. I'm not saying I think he's doing the right thing, but he can do it if he wants.