The real trouble is that people are utterly irrational in their hatred of politicians. I don't like the guy but get real. If you can't say something nice you're probably partisan.
It's worth mentioning that for all Trump's faults, he does have skill in making deals, so he may be OK in this situation (and for those people who say he made deals with people then later ripped them off by going into bankruptcy, in that case he was good at convincing people to get into a deal, even if it was bad for them. ) The follow-up may have trouble, but when it comes to making a deal, that is a skill he has. You might even say that persuasion and deal making are the essential skills for any huckster.
Prior to about 2500 years ago, there were no Buddhists.
Exactly. Albert Camus had only made it to where Buddhism was 500 years before it was invented. To quote Kazuaki Tanahashi, [Buddha] "started out from the same point as the Existentialists: life is short and all things are impermanent. Yet he had penetrated the place where they were stuck, and arrived at the point of trust in action that transforms the inner and outer world."
Albert Camus wrote about The Absurd, the idea that there is a space between humanity's need for a reason to exist, and the universe's indifference in providing that reason. He wrote of three distinct solutions to The Absurd.
Then the Buddhists looked up and said, "Ya'll caught up to where we were 3000 years ago, good job, keep it up!" then wen't back to meditating.
I was thinking of a scenario......Imagine a case where the country was facing iconic collapse unless certain measures were taken (this is hypothetical, I don't think we've had anything this dire so far). But then imagine that a lot of people had bought gold (or bitcoin), hoping to protect against and even get rich from the collapse. Then you would have a situation where most people would actually vote for collapse. Of course, most people, even the ones who thought they would be protected, would not actually benefit from this scenario. Anyway, I agree with you, parties are bad and I vote against them.
It's always a problem when the wrong person gets elected. When my team wins, it's fine. When Democrats win, watch the Republican party squeal for years.
Most of your questions can be answered straightforwardly by using an analogy of a library. Does everyone's submission to add a book to a library need to be allowed? No, not really. Is requesting that a book be removed because you don't like what it says censorship? Yeah, it is.
As a general rule of thumb, "I am offended" is not a good reason to remove speech.
People who have influence know it, and don't need to measure it.
It would be more precise to say, "People who have influence have so many good ways to measure it that Klout score is crude and ineffective in comparison." If you can write a tweet and make 30,000 sales, that is information that is far more relevant than a crappy startup can provide.
They had 15 minutes of fame when they first came out, as people went to check their score. Then when most people realized they didn't have much clout (as is true of 99% of us), we went back to our lives and ignored them.
People who have influence know it, and don't need to measure it. People who don't care don't care. The market for Klout was a small sector of people who wanted influence but had no fucking clue how to get it. Almost any activity you can do, including posting on Slashdot, would be more beneficial than the time wasted checking your Klout score.
So where his campaign theme may seem familiar, is management style and personality are anything but politics as usual. In short, he not only ran promising change, he's actually TRYING to fulfill his promises and in some ways succeeding. I believe this is what keeps his supporters on board and why the overwhelming assault on Trump's character has been largely ineffective at reducing his approval ratings.
All of that could be said about Obama, too. Hope and Change.
Slashdot Mirror
The real trouble is that people are utterly irrational in their hatred of politicians. I don't like the guy but get real. If you can't say something nice you're probably partisan.
It's worth mentioning that for all Trump's faults, he does have skill in making deals, so he may be OK in this situation (and for those people who say he made deals with people then later ripped them off by going into bankruptcy, in that case he was good at convincing people to get into a deal, even if it was bad for them. ) The follow-up may have trouble, but when it comes to making a deal, that is a skill he has. You might even say that persuasion and deal making are the essential skills for any huckster.
It's in the summary. For GNU projects every contributor assigns the copyright of their code to the fsf.
Sure. It's his project, he thinks it's funny, and he sees no reason to remove it.
You misunderstood his joke. He was criticizing people who want to silence abortion councillors.
Prior to about 2500 years ago, there were no Buddhists.
Exactly. Albert Camus had only made it to where Buddhism was 500 years before it was invented. To quote Kazuaki Tanahashi, [Buddha] "started out from the same point as the Existentialists: life is short and all things are impermanent. Yet he had penetrated the place where they were stuck, and arrived at the point of trust in action that transforms the inner and outer world."
What misguided principle do you see here?
"Change we can believe in"
That doesn't matter to me. Scientific data is important, though.
The Russian investigation looks like it's going to turn up nothing.
Even if you think global warming is overhyped, this is still a bad thing, because more environmental data is always good for science.
Albert Camus wrote about The Absurd, the idea that there is a space between humanity's need for a reason to exist, and the universe's indifference in providing that reason. He wrote of three distinct solutions to The Absurd.
Then the Buddhists looked up and said, "Ya'll caught up to where we were 3000 years ago, good job, keep it up!" then wen't back to meditating.
I nottttice your big toe
I was thinking of a scenario......Imagine a case where the country was facing iconic collapse unless certain measures were taken (this is hypothetical, I don't think we've had anything this dire so far). But then imagine that a lot of people had bought gold (or bitcoin), hoping to protect against and even get rich from the collapse. Then you would have a situation where most people would actually vote for collapse. Of course, most people, even the ones who thought they would be protected, would not actually benefit from this scenario. Anyway, I agree with you, parties are bad and I vote against them.
Process arguments are always self-interest and hypocritical.
It's always a problem when the wrong person gets elected. When my team wins, it's fine. When Democrats win, watch the Republican party squeal for years.
Worth mentioning that every car today has a giant tank of energy. A gas tank is in no way safe.
Take that as a lesson: if you ever work with locke2005 don't fire him lest your company collapse.
Dang it, I haven't used it in a decade!
Linx ftw!!
It's worth mentioning that Senator Obama went out of his way, took a break from campaigning, to vote "yes" on that bill.
Most of your questions can be answered straightforwardly by using an analogy of a library. Does everyone's submission to add a book to a library need to be allowed? No, not really. Is requesting that a book be removed because you don't like what it says censorship? Yeah, it is.
As a general rule of thumb, "I am offended" is not a good reason to remove speech.
People who have influence know it, and don't need to measure it.
It would be more precise to say, "People who have influence have so many good ways to measure it that Klout score is crude and ineffective in comparison." If you can write a tweet and make 30,000 sales, that is information that is far more relevant than a crappy startup can provide.
They had 15 minutes of fame when they first came out, as people went to check their score. Then when most people realized they didn't have much clout (as is true of 99% of us), we went back to our lives and ignored them.
People who have influence know it, and don't need to measure it. People who don't care don't care. The market for Klout was a small sector of people who wanted influence but had no fucking clue how to get it. Almost any activity you can do, including posting on Slashdot, would be more beneficial than the time wasted checking your Klout score.
So where his campaign theme may seem familiar, is management style and personality are anything but politics as usual. In short, he not only ran promising change, he's actually TRYING to fulfill his promises and in some ways succeeding. I believe this is what keeps his supporters on board and why the overwhelming assault on Trump's character has been largely ineffective at reducing his approval ratings.
All of that could be said about Obama, too. Hope and Change.