See how long your California stays in the blue after productive people like me all leave for, say, Texas. I give it about 5-6 more years.
After you have nobody left to tax, you'll just have one big circle-jerk of illegals/gangs abusing "disability" poets/dog-walkers.
I am not glad it will happen, but I frankly don't see a solution; I am just tired of paying for the single moms, the surfer bums that "just need a break, man," the community organizers, the social justice warriors... Hollywood might still be making money for a couple more years, so you can keep that.
Have a mandatory Constitutional review before they vote on a new law. If it fails then those who vote for it would be financially liable if the courts later overturn that law. The politicians can still vote as they want, if they are willing to take the financial risk.
Great idea, let's implement it. Oh, wait the people most at risk have to write this into law. Good luck with that.
We already have a ton of farmers growing crops IN THE FREAKING DESERT of California. I think we are already farming unsustainable land. It's ok though, most of the world's available crop land isn't even being tapped yet.
Yes, by pumping ancient aquifers to empty. It won't last forever.
Apple unashamedly politicizes a price hike disguised as equality.
Um, no. Apple has adjusted prices like this many times and for many years. I know, I have apps in their app store. I get the emails all the time about price adjustments in foreign markets. SLASHDOT is the one politicizing it by saying the change is "After Brexit." It's also after Obama's term, after the dinosaurs went extinct, and after World War II. Chronology is not causation.
Sure, here's how to explain it. He appeared genuine, warts and all.
Genuine? He was caught on tape lying so many times I can't count. Constantly denied saying what he was on tape saying. I guess you mean he appeared to be a genuine LIAR.
Reality. What have you been snorting where you don't realize this has been happening? You can be fined for it. That environmentalists push for it. That the favorite blame game is "Monsanto". That the brainchild was the environmentalism of the 70's and 80's, and is such a bad problem that provinces and states now actively encourage planting it. Want to bury your head in the sand? Feel free. The reality is far different, and is probably one of the best examples of environmentalism running amok to the point where it actively damages the environment. Hell if you dig hard through provincial records for example here in Ontario from the 1980's you can find environmental groups actively pushing for the use of broad-spectrum herbicides in order to control particular plant species and stating that the destruction and loss of native species outweighs the bad in controlling others.
A few reports of particular cities banning weeds over a certain height does NOT support your claim that not more than a year or two ago in most North America you could be fined for growing milkweed. And no support for "environmentalists pushing" for such weed laws.
If you look at the data, insurance rate increases have been lower since Obamacare than before it. More people insured spreads the costs. When the GOP kills Obamacare, look for your rates to skyrocket. You will be crying for the time when more people could be insured to reduce the costs.
Things like "noxious weed acts" which destroy plants that support bumblebee populations. Pushed by environmentalists in big cities to get rid of flowering plants which cause allergies. That in turn allowed herbicide spraying to kill or keep them under control. That leads to widespread destruction of flowering areas for the sake of green grass/reduce air allergens. Need another example? Monarch butterflies. Mass population decline, what's the strong correlation? Same noxious weed acts which banned/required destruction of milkweed. Most places have rescinded that. But it wasn't more then a year or two ago in most of north america you could be fined for having it growing on your property because it was considered a weed..
WTF have you been smoking? Envrionmentalists don't push noxious weed acts or anything that sacrifices plants for reduced air allergens. Most of North America you could be fined for having milkweed growing on your property? I've lived in four states and 9 houses in my time, and I've never lived in one of your alleged exclusion zones.
ATT is raising the price of its grandfathered unlimited data plans by $5 a month, the second such increase in the past year..beginning in March 2017, it will increase by $5 per month," ATT said. The unlimited data price had been $30 a month for seven years, until ATT raised it to $35 in February 2016.
Posting it here is clickbait. The submission is almost guaranteed to rile the slashbots up and lead to lots of comments along the lines of "O tempora o mores!", "Kids these days want to change all the old stuff for no reason!". Nevermind that the Monopoly makers have thought about shaking up the piece set for decades. When I was a teenager in the early 1990s, someone doing a survey for Hasbro in the local shopping mall stopped me and asked me to give my opinions of possible new pieces.
They already have changed the pieces. My set has wooden pieces, different colors and shapes. No scotty dog, top hat, iron, wheelbarrow, etc.
Yes, the constitution is meant to be interpreted - that is the fucking job of SCOTUS per Article III of the Constitution. There is a whole area of law called "Constitutional Law" in case you are unaware of it. And just because SCOTUS decides something against how YOU interpret the constitution, doesn't mean they're making shit up. They get to say what's constitutional, not random internet guy.
Sure it does. You're excluding the downtick caused by kids not getting in trouble as much, and going down the path of crime.
At worst, it is gonna be a wash. At best, it will dramatically lower incarceration rates (see, #1 indicator list above), even if you're correct that SOME men will end up in jail on wife beater charges. But then again, you're probably too damn afraid to try it... because change is hard.
Actually, the huge uptick in prison population I was referring to was not caused just by the wifebeaters (OP's point #1), but also by OP's points 3 and 4.
Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.
The original authorities involved in crafting the constitution are no longer around. Instead, we have constitutional scholars and supreme court justices. They know a lot more than some angry internet dude yelling for less government until he loses something. Fact: until SCOTUS says otherwise, DoEd is constitutional.
Well they haven't ruled either way, so we can't say that. We can say that it's assumed to be Constitutional until there is a challenge, but that's about all. The real fact is that it's a huge useless waste of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, and that public education has only gotten worse since it was established.
I disagree on your "real fact." Without public education the great majority of people in this country would be MUCH worse off. Do you really want countless millions of illiterate people around you?
That has nothing to do with the Federal Department of Education. At all. NOTHING. We had public education before 1979, and we will have it after that useless waste of money is disbanded and nothing but a bad memory, and it will likely thrive without the boots of Common Core and No Child Left Behind and other disasters stamping on the face of responsible educators trying to help the children succeed.
That is, your idiotic straw man is just that: an idiotic straw man.
FYI: The Department of Education was established in 1867, and was later sucked into Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1939, then again became it's own department in 1979, so it's been around a lot longer than you think. I was not putting up a straw man, I was under the impression you were saying that public education was a huge waste of money, not just federal funding. If you are consistent, I'm sure you'll be against Trump's proposal to spend $20B pushing federal money to the states to support vouchers.
Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.
The original authorities involved in crafting the constitution are no longer around. Instead, we have constitutional scholars and supreme court justices. They know a lot more than some angry internet dude yelling for less government until he loses something. Fact: until SCOTUS says otherwise, DoEd is constitutional.
Well they haven't ruled either way, so we can't say that. We can say that it's assumed to be Constitutional until there is a challenge, but that's about all. The real fact is that it's a huge useless waste of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, and that public education has only gotten worse since it was established.
I disagree on your "real fact." Without public education the great majority of people in this country would be MUCH worse off. Do you really want countless millions of illiterate people around you?
Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.
The original authorities involved in crafting the constitution are no longer around. Instead, we have constitutional scholars and supreme court justices. They know a lot more than some angry internet dude yelling for less government until he loses something. Fact: until SCOTUS says otherwise, DoEd is constitutional.
Here's my homework, teacher: Article 1, section 8: Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States.
This does not equate to a power to spend tax money on (or regulate) anything "for the 'common defense' or 'general welfare'". If Congress's enumerated powers included getting involved in education, this clause would grant them the power to raise money toward that end. It does not grant that power by itself. If it did, the remainder of the section (and the entire concept of enumerated powers) would be rendered meaningless, which was obviously not the authors' or signers' intent.
Don't worry, this is a very common mistake. Your reading comprehension will improve with practice. In the meantime, perhaps you would care to read what Thomas Jefferson and JamesMadison had to say on the subject.
First, "obvious" in the eye of the beholder. This is especially true when it comes to the constitution - people get degrees in that shit. Second, snarky "your reading comprehension" lines don't help your point. Third, if DoEd is unconstitutional, why hasn't someone sued to get the Feds out of Education. Short answer: the Supreme Court would laugh at your interpretation.
I'll be glad to tell you the difference. In China, the censorship is from the government; this article is referring to private businesses. Clear enough?
Keep on keeping on. Critical thought is not required in order to live.
What was the difference again? Oh right. One government person can not arbitrarily decide something can be censored, like in China. It has to be a group of government people. All the difference in the world.
It's quite a difference when the censorship is done by the people with the guns as opposed to the people selling shiny stuff.
Tell me how this is any different than what China does, then. You might as well have a Ministry of Truth.
I'll be glad to tell you the difference. In China, the censorship is from the government; this article is referring to private businesses. Clear enough?
It's still chilling and pervasive censorship!? You can call the oppressors what you will, they are still oppressors of human freedom. Who has more real power in the world: companies, governments... people? Will you actually be allowed to see this message? Think for yourself
It's quite a difference when the censorship is done by the people with the guns as opposed to the people selling shiny stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
The speeds offered are 30 down/20 up or 100 down/50 up (in Mbps). So it is about like cable internet in the US.
Except the % of US population with 100/50 availability is much closer to 8.5% than 85%.
See how long your California stays in the blue after productive people like me all leave for, say, Texas. I give it about 5-6 more years. After you have nobody left to tax, you'll just have one big circle-jerk of illegals/gangs abusing "disability" poets/dog-walkers.
I am not glad it will happen, but I frankly don't see a solution; I am just tired of paying for the single moms, the surfer bums that "just need a break, man," the community organizers, the social justice warriors... Hollywood might still be making money for a couple more years, so you can keep that.
LOL. In case you didn't know, California population has been on the increase for over 100 years: https://www.google.com/search?...
Coal is killing the planet, wind and solar are not. Your dad probably complained about when asbestos and lead paint were being phased out, too.
He doesn't remember. He ate all that lead paint.
Have a mandatory Constitutional review before they vote on a new law. If it fails then those who vote for it would be financially liable if the courts later overturn that law. The politicians can still vote as they want, if they are willing to take the financial risk.
Great idea, let's implement it. Oh, wait the people most at risk have to write this into law. Good luck with that.
Is the asteroid as annoying as his character was? Does it endanger us and then somehow save us?
We already have a ton of farmers growing crops IN THE FREAKING DESERT of California. I think we are already farming unsustainable land. It's ok though, most of the world's available crop land isn't even being tapped yet.
Yes, by pumping ancient aquifers to empty. It won't last forever.
Apple unashamedly politicizes a price hike disguised as equality.
Um, no. Apple has adjusted prices like this many times and for many years. I know, I have apps in their app store. I get the emails all the time about price adjustments in foreign markets. SLASHDOT is the one politicizing it by saying the change is "After Brexit." It's also after Obama's term, after the dinosaurs went extinct, and after World War II. Chronology is not causation.
Sure, here's how to explain it. He appeared genuine, warts and all.
Genuine? He was caught on tape lying so many times I can't count. Constantly denied saying what he was on tape saying. I guess you mean he appeared to be a genuine LIAR.
WTF have you been smoking?
Reality. What have you been snorting where you don't realize this has been happening? You can be fined for it. That environmentalists push for it. That the favorite blame game is "Monsanto". That the brainchild was the environmentalism of the 70's and 80's, and is such a bad problem that provinces and states now actively encourage planting it. Want to bury your head in the sand? Feel free. The reality is far different, and is probably one of the best examples of environmentalism running amok to the point where it actively damages the environment. Hell if you dig hard through provincial records for example here in Ontario from the 1980's you can find environmental groups actively pushing for the use of broad-spectrum herbicides in order to control particular plant species and stating that the destruction and loss of native species outweighs the bad in controlling others.
A few reports of particular cities banning weeds over a certain height does NOT support your claim that not more than a year or two ago in most North America you could be fined for growing milkweed. And no support for "environmentalists pushing" for such weed laws.
If you look at the data, insurance rate increases have been lower since Obamacare than before it. More people insured spreads the costs. When the GOP kills Obamacare, look for your rates to skyrocket. You will be crying for the time when more people could be insured to reduce the costs.
Things like "noxious weed acts" which destroy plants that support bumblebee populations. Pushed by environmentalists in big cities to get rid of flowering plants which cause allergies. That in turn allowed herbicide spraying to kill or keep them under control. That leads to widespread destruction of flowering areas for the sake of green grass/reduce air allergens. Need another example? Monarch butterflies. Mass population decline, what's the strong correlation? Same noxious weed acts which banned/required destruction of milkweed. Most places have rescinded that. But it wasn't more then a year or two ago in most of north america you could be fined for having it growing on your property because it was considered a weed..
WTF have you been smoking? Envrionmentalists don't push noxious weed acts or anything that sacrifices plants for reduced air allergens. Most of North America you could be fined for having milkweed growing on your property? I've lived in four states and 9 houses in my time, and I've never lived in one of your alleged exclusion zones.
ATT is raising the price of its grandfathered unlimited data plans by $5 a month, the second such increase in the past year..beginning in March 2017, it will increase by $5 per month," ATT said. The unlimited data price had been $30 a month for seven years, until ATT raised it to $35 in February 2016.
No, it's not the second increase in a year.
Posting it here is clickbait. The submission is almost guaranteed to rile the slashbots up and lead to lots of comments along the lines of "O tempora o mores!", "Kids these days want to change all the old stuff for no reason!". Nevermind that the Monopoly makers have thought about shaking up the piece set for decades. When I was a teenager in the early 1990s, someone doing a survey for Hasbro in the local shopping mall stopped me and asked me to give my opinions of possible new pieces.
They already have changed the pieces. My set has wooden pieces, different colors and shapes. No scotty dog, top hat, iron, wheelbarrow, etc.
Alcoholics I know replace eating with drinking and lose wait as a result.
Try harder! Calling people Nazis stopped being effective about 3 weeks ago.
You mean because we elected one anyway?
My car will only say "Fuck you!" to all other cars.
Yes, the constitution is meant to be interpreted - that is the fucking job of SCOTUS per Article III of the Constitution. There is a whole area of law called "Constitutional Law" in case you are unaware of it. And just because SCOTUS decides something against how YOU interpret the constitution, doesn't mean they're making shit up. They get to say what's constitutional, not random internet guy.
Sure it does. You're excluding the downtick caused by kids not getting in trouble as much, and going down the path of crime.
At worst, it is gonna be a wash. At best, it will dramatically lower incarceration rates (see, #1 indicator list above), even if you're correct that SOME men will end up in jail on wife beater charges. But then again, you're probably too damn afraid to try it ... because change is hard.
Actually, the huge uptick in prison population I was referring to was not caused just by the wifebeaters (OP's point #1), but also by OP's points 3 and 4.
Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.
The original authorities involved in crafting the constitution are no longer around. Instead, we have constitutional scholars and supreme court justices. They know a lot more than some angry internet dude yelling for less government until he loses something. Fact: until SCOTUS says otherwise, DoEd is constitutional.
Well they haven't ruled either way, so we can't say that. We can say that it's assumed to be Constitutional until there is a challenge, but that's about all. The real fact is that it's a huge useless waste of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, and that public education has only gotten worse since it was established.
I disagree on your "real fact." Without public education the great majority of people in this country would be MUCH worse off. Do you really want countless millions of illiterate people around you?
That has nothing to do with the Federal Department of Education. At all. NOTHING. We had public education before 1979, and we will have it after that useless waste of money is disbanded and nothing but a bad memory, and it will likely thrive without the boots of Common Core and No Child Left Behind and other disasters stamping on the face of responsible educators trying to help the children succeed.
That is, your idiotic straw man is just that: an idiotic straw man.
FYI: The Department of Education was established in 1867, and was later sucked into Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1939, then again became it's own department in 1979, so it's been around a lot longer than you think. I was not putting up a straw man, I was under the impression you were saying that public education was a huge waste of money, not just federal funding. If you are consistent, I'm sure you'll be against Trump's proposal to spend $20B pushing federal money to the states to support vouchers.
Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.
The original authorities involved in crafting the constitution are no longer around. Instead, we have constitutional scholars and supreme court justices. They know a lot more than some angry internet dude yelling for less government until he loses something. Fact: until SCOTUS says otherwise, DoEd is constitutional.
Well they haven't ruled either way, so we can't say that. We can say that it's assumed to be Constitutional until there is a challenge, but that's about all. The real fact is that it's a huge useless waste of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, and that public education has only gotten worse since it was established.
I disagree on your "real fact." Without public education the great majority of people in this country would be MUCH worse off. Do you really want countless millions of illiterate people around you?
Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.
The original authorities involved in crafting the constitution are no longer around. Instead, we have constitutional scholars and supreme court justices. They know a lot more than some angry internet dude yelling for less government until he loses something. Fact: until SCOTUS says otherwise, DoEd is constitutional.
Here's my homework, teacher: Article 1, section 8: Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States.
This does not equate to a power to spend tax money on (or regulate) anything "for the 'common defense' or 'general welfare'". If Congress's enumerated powers included getting involved in education, this clause would grant them the power to raise money toward that end. It does not grant that power by itself. If it did, the remainder of the section (and the entire concept of enumerated powers) would be rendered meaningless, which was obviously not the authors' or signers' intent.
Don't worry, this is a very common mistake. Your reading comprehension will improve with practice. In the meantime, perhaps you would care to read what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had to say on the subject.
First, "obvious" in the eye of the beholder. This is especially true when it comes to the constitution - people get degrees in that shit. Second, snarky "your reading comprehension" lines don't help your point. Third, if DoEd is unconstitutional, why hasn't someone sued to get the Feds out of Education. Short answer: the Supreme Court would laugh at your interpretation.
So you're arguing that can tax but not spend? Phht!
I'll be glad to tell you the difference. In China, the censorship is from the government; this article is referring to private businesses. Clear enough?
Yeah, the government has nothing to do with this: https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
Keep on keeping on. Critical thought is not required in order to live.
What was the difference again? Oh right. One government person can not arbitrarily decide something can be censored, like in China. It has to be a group of government people. All the difference in the world.
It's quite a difference when the censorship is done by the people with the guns as opposed to the people selling shiny stuff.
Tell me how this is any different than what China does, then. You might as well have a Ministry of Truth.
I'll be glad to tell you the difference. In China, the censorship is from the government; this article is referring to private businesses. Clear enough?
It's still chilling and pervasive censorship!? You can call the oppressors what you will, they are still oppressors of human freedom. Who has more real power in the world: companies, governments... people? Will you actually be allowed to see this message? Think for yourself
It's quite a difference when the censorship is done by the people with the guns as opposed to the people selling shiny stuff.