Or since the ones doing the automation are the tech industry which is the largest driving labor factor in our economy and entire composed of middle and upper middle class jobs, the same jobs being replaced by automation and outsourcing.
We could provide a basic income so those people are rewarded rather than burned for advancing humanity and helping us to realize a world where we all no longer have to trade a third or more of our lives away just to survive.
Not really. Because it screws the workers. You might be fine with the solution that screws the workers rather than increasing risk for maintaining wealth but those workers are part of society. More importantly they are consumers. If they are broke they can't consume and the economy is screwed.
You might expect them to be replaced by developing nation consumers and therefore still not care but those developing nations are developing only because they are building on a technological foundation built by the engineers of the first world. You could argue that they are just as intelligent and have greater numbers to advance technology but that was true historically as well and yet it was Europeans in Europe and the US who built all our technological wonders and advancement with their fewer numbers. Additionally, do you think it is right? Those who shouldered the business side of accomplishments have long been enjoying being benefactors passing generation to generation with no need to work while the engineers who actually had all the brilliance and developed the technology largely have not.
What is the benefit of continuing to pile up numbers on a sheet for the elite in the US and not allowing so much as a basic income which might cause 1/4% standing inflation to everyone in the US so those who actually produced the technology that will allow the rest of the world to develop can eat, be healthy, and enjoy at least a minimal quality of life. We can't compete with automation and the sheer numbers of laborers in the developing world but that is only true because we made technology that enabled the automation and the development of the world.
"Companies are in many ways like predators - or parasites - living off the population; if they exert too much pressure, the ecosystem collapses and the predators/parasites go down with their prey."
There is nothing in the corporate objectives that would lead to companies stopping that pressure even if every single employee of the organization has this personal insight. They will still go to work and work toward company objectives. If you want to understand why, watch the "the experiment." Corporations (that are large enough to be notable here) are heavily silo'd and 9 out of 10 will assume a role mentality when they go to work.
Hopefully enough people with a large amount of wealth understands the issue well enough that even though something like this would need to be funded via inflation not taxation and therefore mean they have to assume slightly higher risk to maintain their wealth instead of coming out of worker pay, they will see it is necessary and not fight it.
Combine that with the reality that in most industries no matter how many brands there are, they are actually all owed by maybe three competitors. They don't have to have any meetings or active collusion to realize where it would cost them more to compete than they would gain by taking market share from their competitors. So the savings rarely translate into competition points and instead go straight into profits. That cheaper checkout lane does not reduces prices on the shelf at all.
I'm sorry but that just isn't accurate at any farmers market I've purchased from. Maybe you have an income where the difference is negligible to you and/or live at a major source of production like California that reduces prices for you/increases costs for major supermarkets.
The pricing you just mentioned of $1 each for bell peppers would be heavy markup vs a major chain store (think walmart grocery, not whole foods) where you could likely find them for a third of that price in season. There is also another large expense, time.
And let's be honest, the grocery store is pretty much the only place you even have an option like this anymore. Farming is not a big source of profit in the US, in fact the entire industry continues to exist only because of subsidies and illegal labor.
Tech is the driving force in our economy and there is no farmers market. Tech workers are automating themselves out of the job, they are automating away thousands of upper middle class income positions leaving only a couple people at the top to manage it, pairing them with an h1b or two to replace those people and then outsourcing the few humans who need to remain to look at blips here and there outright. Is it right for the tech industry to engineer the technology to automate our world and expand enlightenment to the developing world and be left unemployed or running a checkout lane for their trouble?
This isn't charity. It should be paid to all natural born citizens without regard to their income. This is the transition from a small portion of the first world population enjoying the benefits for their innovation and insight early on and not having to work for their basic needs to the first world being that small portion of the global population.
The difference with a basic income is that you would be paid the income as well. It would not be charity or negated by profits via working. It is simply a more equitable distribution of profits from automation and outsourcing. After all, tech workers are currently being asked to work/develop themselves and their peers out of the job. It used to be that automation created new more skilled jobs to replace the old jobs. That is no longer the case, automation replaces workers or dumbs tasks down to the point where less skilled third world workers can perform the tasks leaving perhaps one skilled worker where there used to be 20. And these are high five well into six figure positions not factory workers.
Here in the US the need for this is pretty clear. Fiat currencies including our depend on inflation to function. Currently we can't manage to create inflation even with an effective zero interest rate (the fed creates money on demand and effectively gives it to banks for free or even at a loss should there be inflation over the loan term). Basically, as a nation our wealth is growing so fast we can't inflate the dollar despite refinancing virtually every mortgage, student, and auto loan in the country but the growth is not at the middle or the bottom (think 0.001% top not 1%).
This is not charity, this is a transition step on our path to a world where people no longer need to work. The "first world" has developed and advanced the technology. The elite class who largely no longer HAVE to work or need do so minimally would be expanding from a small sliver of the first world population to a small sliver of the global population, which is essentially the entire current first world. We developed and built all the technology for the foundation but we can't compete with the sheers numbers of the third world to build on the technological foundation we built for them. It's time to pass the labor on to the third world and let the first world enjoy the benefits of what they've done.
The minimum income shouldn't be paid for with taxes though, it should paid with new inflation dollars from the Fed. Normally we'd be terrified of out of control inflation but this provides no danger as I said before as we are actually at risk of numerical economic stagnation due to a tangible risk of deflation. The only result is those with entrenched wealth have to assume slightly more risk on investments but the resulting inflation rate is highly unlikely to be higher than at most times through the last 20 years. In fact, we could completely fund universal healthcare alongside this without much risk of that.
You don't object to some people getting enjoy retirement? Think of this as earned retirement for the collective workers of the first world. Eventually the class who need not work will grow to include currently developing nations as well until everything is automated and people work to pursue goals they want and occupy their time rather than because they need do so to fulfill basic needs.
"I think the problem is that we believe that everything is a Right"
The people as the highest authority in the land reserved all powers they did not explicitly grant government. The bill of rights is a list of clarifications on SOME of the rights the people explicitly reserved, it isn't exhaustive, as stated in the bill of rights.
Now go through your list and read it again, asking the question before each item "Did we grant any branch of government the authority to take away the Right to..." and you'll find the answer is no to all but the house and we only granted the limited right to use it as shelter in time of war.
"If I offer you free lunch at work and you don't like my offering, you are free to bring your own lunch."
If a law passed by congress to provide for the general welfare says you must provide employees with lunch and that lunch must include the option for a piece of fruit. Then you as an employer are bound to respect the Constitutional authority to pass that law which we the people have granted congress. The difference between the people who make up a corporation and the corporation is that the corporation is given tax benefits and provides legal indemnification to the people. The corporation is also spending before tax money and deducting it which the people would not be entitled to do. That means you lose the right to refuse the fruit option because you believe fruit is sentient and has feelings. You traded any claim to that for tax benefits, legal protection, and the ability to spend money tax free under the guise of the corporation spending it rather than you. You do however have the same right as the employee, to not choose the fruit option FOR YOURSELF.
As for other benefits that aren't required by law. Did you mention those benefits during the interview as part of your employment offer? Last I checked they are part of the compensation package not some favor. You OWE your employee their benefits the same as their salary. You aren't actually superior to your staff you know, you have to pay to get people to listen to you akin to paying for sex because they wouldn't agree to help you willingly. If you fail to pay the bill for that service in all forms, including both actual cash and benefits, they not only are entitled to stop pretending you have authority, they are entitled to sue you.
"Tangentially, why is it legal for customers to boycott a business, but not legal for a business to boycott people?"
Outside a few specially protected classes businesses do have the right to refuse service. Individuals can't just run around doing whatever they want, what is about a business that you think magically should enable doing whatever you want? We have rules, you don't make them. Get over it.
Sorry, civil servants performing their duties temporarily assume the mantle of the office they occupy. Their individual rights as citizens do not carry over into that office, they instead assume the limitations on government imposed by the law and the Constitution.
The Constitution is the law, a public official is not entitled to decide when and if they will follow the law, respect the rights of citizens, and perform their duties so long as they hold that office. I don't care if you are a ministry student who survived an abortion attempt when you go home, when you suit up and go to work as a police officer you protect that doctor walking out of that abortion clinic from harm caused by protesters with your life if need be. When your shift ends you can join the protesters.
Whether you happen to share the particular belief of the official in question is irrelevant. Public officials refusing to do their duties, follow the law and the Constitution, whether it be police, judges, congress, the president, the county clerk or a justice of the peace is a far bigger issue than anything that will be discussed at any D or R presidential debate. Yes, you absolutely should be outraged and fight against this.
"so now supporting a public official that agrees with one's own views, is denying others their rights"
If that public official is abusing their office and refusing to perform services with the result that others are denied their rights and you support that, yes, you in turn are a party to denying those rights. What does sharing the belief of the official have to do with anything? A gay couple has a right to get married so does the public official. An employee has a right to make their own health care decisions, so does the employer. An employer does not have a right to make an employees health care decisions, a public official does not have the right to refuse to selectively perform their duties based on personal beliefs rather than the law. The employer has the right to not have employees and the public official has the right to quit.
MOST of the country can't wait for a different president and by different I mean not D or R. Not one D or R candidate is willing to fight for the second amendment, support Edward Snowden and stop NSA surveillance, opposes the TPP, or stands against government backdoors in encryption. Not one of them is pushing for an end to a war on the phantom concept of "terror" and effectively training our troops to fight a civil war.
And rather than spinning down the nuclear arsenal and continuing with pushing for a global decommissioning of nuclear arms the sitting president is testing nukes in Nevada again and designing new ones.
Don't skew things in the wrong direction. "Gun" crime goes up, especially in relative terms, with less restrictive gun control but the murder rate goes down. It doesn't particularly matter what you were killed with, dead is dead. Something about stalemates and bringing a knife to a gun fight. Detroit has heavy gun control.
Other violent crime stats are mixed up because police tend to try to make some kind of charge stick when someone has a gun and any crime committed while holding a weapon gets tagged as violent whether or not violence occurred.
Let's face it, we have no real stats here. Violence rates improperly consider the presence of a weapon during the commission of a crime to be violence and most statistics improperly target GUN violence and not violent crime. That is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, obviously having guns means that there will be more cases where someone had a gun. Especially with police trying to find excuses to charge people who have them. You are no less dead when beaten to death and no less robbed when the guy was just big enough to take your stuff, you are no more raped when simply physically overpowered.
This is why people pull out murder statistics. It's a solid statistic that shows number of people who died as a result of criminal action without adding loaded qualifiers like "gun" or counting the presence of a gun during a crime where nobody was injured at all. And especially avoids counting cases where police charged the guy who defended himself or his property against a criminal.
Murder statistics are also reasonably consistent. Relaxing gun control restrictions has dropped the murder rate. Less good people die at the hands of bad guys when more good people are armed. And if shooting at an armed crowd having a large capacity magazine doesn't generally allow you to shoot more people since the crowd shoots back.
Attempts to block gay marriage. Supporting public officials illegally refusing to grant marriage licenses based on their own religious beliefs. Denying employees medical coverage for types of treatments that are just fine by the employees beliefs but not by the employers.
All of those are things which actually deny others their rights but somehow were twisted into the person trying to limit another being denied their right to religious freedom.
His bad for implying that there actually were things which are specifically legal. There aren't, you can be arrested for any action at officer discretion these days.
Slight but significant correction. The Constitution grants government powers and gives some examples of things explicitly not granted to clarify. The government has no rights, the people are entitled to revise or replace the Constitution and revoke any authority granted by the Constitution if they should choose to do so. One of those examples is just that, the right to override all branches of government via direct representatives in the form of a jury. The government is not entitled to inflict punishment of any form upon any person no matter how phrased whether called criminal, civil, or penalty without that person having the right to ask a jury of the people to nullify that decision.
Cities which relax gun controls see dramatic decreases in crimes but there are gun restricted cities with low crime rates. Those stats are definitely muddied with and colored by agendas across the board. Those trying to boost the stats want to call every crime where someone had an arm a violent crime to skew the stats or quality crime with the tag 'gun' as if it worse to get robbed at gunpoint than knife point. The truth is, with more guns about people are more likely to have them good and bad. Obviously the more guns that are around the more gun related accidents as well. It is also true that mass shootings are only successful in a gun free or gun restricted environment and the damage is minimized when people in the crowd can shoot back.
It is certainly true that as the president said, "No self respecting hunter needs an AR15." The AR15 is powerful enough for shooting people but generally isn't considered powerful enough to ensure a clean shot on a large deer and completely useless vs a bear. Instead hunters tend to use.308 rifles which are much more powerful than the AR15. Mostly people want AR15's for target practice or self defense. The AR15 "assault rifle" which isn't a real class of gun btw is desired for entertainment and target practice and to secure the home, not from the time when they come to take our guns but from the time when a foreign invader or a civil war occurs. Or more commonly when attacked by an armed city gang or crazy pumped up ranchers.
I think some gun control is warranted, as in not allowing convicted felons and those with mental issues to own guns. Additionally, a safe gun handling and usage course should be a high school requirement.
As for types of weapon, if the military is allowed to have it the people should be allowed to have it which is a far cry from actually being able to afford it, large arms are expensive and it would take a large number of citizens, such as a community funded volunteer militia to be able to afford big arms. It's worth remembering that a reasonably intelligent person can read a couple library books and build explosives with far more deadly potential than what the military classifies as "small arms" which is the category all the guns that gun control ever talks about. The Constitution divides military power between citizens (and no, the national guard is not it) and the state so that the few need always fear the wrath of the many. Which was wise since there is no evidence of true democracy ever occurring except on the other side of the many getting fed up with the few. Currently arms are restricted to the degree this is not the case in the US.
The worst gun control actually takes two forms. First it is in the ATF definition of a gun, which essentially limits civilian owned firearms to 18th century technology. The second is the ATF redefining essentially all maintenance and gunsmithing you'd perform on guns to constitute "gun manufacturing" never mind that you started with a gun that was recorded when manufactured and ended with just that one gun. The second is Secretary Clinton, hijacking a federal body empowered to regulate organizations exporting military grade arms and expanding the list of military grade arms to include essentially all weapons, despite the fact that the military does not use them. The AR15 is a good example, the AR15 is the demilitarized civilian version of the M16 firing mechanism. The AK is a similar type of weapon that just didn't originate in the US. The idea that these are somehow more dangerous than other civilian arms being used for hunting is ridiculous. The AR and AK mechanical designs are reliable and effective military developed designs that are good at shooting a bullet when you want and not shooting a bullet you don't want to. Those designs can be resized and put in guns ranging from the most deadly to the least deadly.
With more modern arms we could build new types of projectile weapons that aren't essentially hundreds of little bombs in our pockets. We could build technology in t
Oh my brother. That isn't a dice innovation but it's present on almost every site you browse. You should do some googling on the super cookie for instance.
It is a shame because it leads to opinions like that this should not have been reported on. I believe a team of credible experts in this area having reached this hypothesis and feeling it is a likely enough possibility that they are looking for funding to spend their time investigating it for the next few months or years is interesting news to many people who wouldn't be reading or have access to the actual peer reviewed articles. This includes many with the means to fund taking such research further.
Provided they've accurately said this is a possibility which they have not yet confirmed I see nothing wrong with that. The article on Slashdot the other day indicated they had not yet found or confirmed any such planet, only that it was consistent with the data they've reviewed so far but said it with an optimistic tone. This article says the same but with a negative tone. If they are hoping it gets the attention of someone who can fund the research, they aren't misleading anyone. If they claimed they were already there then what would they be needing funding for? Investigating further is going to cost a great deal of time and money.
Yeah, it does turn itself back on periodically. And there is still the sponsored content videos at the bottom of the page as well as partner videos mixed into the headlines. It really just turns off the advertising that existed at the time they put it in which is the big block of ads at the right of the page and a banner at the top.
They likely are also still tracking what content you visit.
If he did it would recommend just what he is suggesting, individual and randomized passwords generated using multiple character sets and that are very long.
In place a sticky note use an encrypted personal password system like keepass and secure it with one very strong and secure passphrase that is memorable. The passphrase can be quite long so you can use something you have memorized. Don't use songs everyone knows or popular phrases from sci-fi shows though. Ideally, pick something annoying, inappropriate for your age group/profession that you dislike but couldn't forget if you wanted to. Something from a topic you are not likely to ever be posting on Facebook. Don't go using something about a floral bonnet when you are a firefly fan.
Perhaps it would just be better if no longer give a distinction to words planet and theory and instead just treat them as exact synonyms to body and hypothesis.
Back in third grade when we learned the scientific method I don't remember a "theory" step in there anywhere. If anything calling something a theory only serves to create the illusion of factuality which is a rather ironic thing to do to the product of skepticism and rational inquiry. A still valid hypothesis should be used as the best tool we have so far but we should never drop skepticism. We wouldn't want to look back in ten thousand years and be the idiots who dropped skepticism of models which concern billions of years worth of data were unshakable after less than a century or two of inquiry.
Slashdot Mirror
Or since the ones doing the automation are the tech industry which is the largest driving labor factor in our economy and entire composed of middle and upper middle class jobs, the same jobs being replaced by automation and outsourcing.
We could provide a basic income so those people are rewarded rather than burned for advancing humanity and helping us to realize a world where we all no longer have to trade a third or more of our lives away just to survive.
Not really. Because it screws the workers. You might be fine with the solution that screws the workers rather than increasing risk for maintaining wealth but those workers are part of society. More importantly they are consumers. If they are broke they can't consume and the economy is screwed.
You might expect them to be replaced by developing nation consumers and therefore still not care but those developing nations are developing only because they are building on a technological foundation built by the engineers of the first world. You could argue that they are just as intelligent and have greater numbers to advance technology but that was true historically as well and yet it was Europeans in Europe and the US who built all our technological wonders and advancement with their fewer numbers. Additionally, do you think it is right? Those who shouldered the business side of accomplishments have long been enjoying being benefactors passing generation to generation with no need to work while the engineers who actually had all the brilliance and developed the technology largely have not.
What is the benefit of continuing to pile up numbers on a sheet for the elite in the US and not allowing so much as a basic income which might cause 1/4% standing inflation to everyone in the US so those who actually produced the technology that will allow the rest of the world to develop can eat, be healthy, and enjoy at least a minimal quality of life. We can't compete with automation and the sheer numbers of laborers in the developing world but that is only true because we made technology that enabled the automation and the development of the world.
"Companies are in many ways like predators - or parasites - living off the population; if they exert too much pressure, the ecosystem collapses and the predators/parasites go down with their prey."
There is nothing in the corporate objectives that would lead to companies stopping that pressure even if every single employee of the organization has this personal insight. They will still go to work and work toward company objectives. If you want to understand why, watch the "the experiment." Corporations (that are large enough to be notable here) are heavily silo'd and 9 out of 10 will assume a role mentality when they go to work.
Hopefully enough people with a large amount of wealth understands the issue well enough that even though something like this would need to be funded via inflation not taxation and therefore mean they have to assume slightly higher risk to maintain their wealth instead of coming out of worker pay, they will see it is necessary and not fight it.
Combine that with the reality that in most industries no matter how many brands there are, they are actually all owed by maybe three competitors. They don't have to have any meetings or active collusion to realize where it would cost them more to compete than they would gain by taking market share from their competitors. So the savings rarely translate into competition points and instead go straight into profits. That cheaper checkout lane does not reduces prices on the shelf at all.
I'm sorry but that just isn't accurate at any farmers market I've purchased from. Maybe you have an income where the difference is negligible to you and/or live at a major source of production like California that reduces prices for you/increases costs for major supermarkets.
The pricing you just mentioned of $1 each for bell peppers would be heavy markup vs a major chain store (think walmart grocery, not whole foods) where you could likely find them for a third of that price in season. There is also another large expense, time.
And let's be honest, the grocery store is pretty much the only place you even have an option like this anymore. Farming is not a big source of profit in the US, in fact the entire industry continues to exist only because of subsidies and illegal labor.
Tech is the driving force in our economy and there is no farmers market. Tech workers are automating themselves out of the job, they are automating away thousands of upper middle class income positions leaving only a couple people at the top to manage it, pairing them with an h1b or two to replace those people and then outsourcing the few humans who need to remain to look at blips here and there outright. Is it right for the tech industry to engineer the technology to automate our world and expand enlightenment to the developing world and be left unemployed or running a checkout lane for their trouble?
This isn't charity. It should be paid to all natural born citizens without regard to their income. This is the transition from a small portion of the first world population enjoying the benefits for their innovation and insight early on and not having to work for their basic needs to the first world being that small portion of the global population.
The difference with a basic income is that you would be paid the income as well. It would not be charity or negated by profits via working. It is simply a more equitable distribution of profits from automation and outsourcing. After all, tech workers are currently being asked to work/develop themselves and their peers out of the job. It used to be that automation created new more skilled jobs to replace the old jobs. That is no longer the case, automation replaces workers or dumbs tasks down to the point where less skilled third world workers can perform the tasks leaving perhaps one skilled worker where there used to be 20. And these are high five well into six figure positions not factory workers.
Here in the US the need for this is pretty clear. Fiat currencies including our depend on inflation to function. Currently we can't manage to create inflation even with an effective zero interest rate (the fed creates money on demand and effectively gives it to banks for free or even at a loss should there be inflation over the loan term). Basically, as a nation our wealth is growing so fast we can't inflate the dollar despite refinancing virtually every mortgage, student, and auto loan in the country but the growth is not at the middle or the bottom (think 0.001% top not 1%).
This is not charity, this is a transition step on our path to a world where people no longer need to work. The "first world" has developed and advanced the technology. The elite class who largely no longer HAVE to work or need do so minimally would be expanding from a small sliver of the first world population to a small sliver of the global population, which is essentially the entire current first world. We developed and built all the technology for the foundation but we can't compete with the sheers numbers of the third world to build on the technological foundation we built for them. It's time to pass the labor on to the third world and let the first world enjoy the benefits of what they've done.
The minimum income shouldn't be paid for with taxes though, it should paid with new inflation dollars from the Fed. Normally we'd be terrified of out of control inflation but this provides no danger as I said before as we are actually at risk of numerical economic stagnation due to a tangible risk of deflation. The only result is those with entrenched wealth have to assume slightly more risk on investments but the resulting inflation rate is highly unlikely to be higher than at most times through the last 20 years. In fact, we could completely fund universal healthcare alongside this without much risk of that.
You don't object to some people getting enjoy retirement? Think of this as earned retirement for the collective workers of the first world. Eventually the class who need not work will grow to include currently developing nations as well until everything is automated and people work to pursue goals they want and occupy their time rather than because they need do so to fulfill basic needs.
We didn't grant the government the authority to mandate or limit our right to have and bear arms in the Constitution. It isn't actually up to them.
"I think the problem is that we believe that everything is a Right"
The people as the highest authority in the land reserved all powers they did not explicitly grant government. The bill of rights is a list of clarifications on SOME of the rights the people explicitly reserved, it isn't exhaustive, as stated in the bill of rights.
Now go through your list and read it again, asking the question before each item "Did we grant any branch of government the authority to take away the Right to..." and you'll find the answer is no to all but the house and we only granted the limited right to use it as shelter in time of war.
"If I offer you free lunch at work and you don't like my offering, you are free to bring your own lunch."
If a law passed by congress to provide for the general welfare says you must provide employees with lunch and that lunch must include the option for a piece of fruit. Then you as an employer are bound to respect the Constitutional authority to pass that law which we the people have granted congress. The difference between the people who make up a corporation and the corporation is that the corporation is given tax benefits and provides legal indemnification to the people. The corporation is also spending before tax money and deducting it which the people would not be entitled to do. That means you lose the right to refuse the fruit option because you believe fruit is sentient and has feelings. You traded any claim to that for tax benefits, legal protection, and the ability to spend money tax free under the guise of the corporation spending it rather than you. You do however have the same right as the employee, to not choose the fruit option FOR YOURSELF.
As for other benefits that aren't required by law. Did you mention those benefits during the interview as part of your employment offer? Last I checked they are part of the compensation package not some favor. You OWE your employee their benefits the same as their salary. You aren't actually superior to your staff you know, you have to pay to get people to listen to you akin to paying for sex because they wouldn't agree to help you willingly. If you fail to pay the bill for that service in all forms, including both actual cash and benefits, they not only are entitled to stop pretending you have authority, they are entitled to sue you.
"Tangentially, why is it legal for customers to boycott a business, but not legal for a business to boycott people?"
Outside a few specially protected classes businesses do have the right to refuse service. Individuals can't just run around doing whatever they want, what is about a business that you think magically should enable doing whatever you want? We have rules, you don't make them. Get over it.
Sorry, civil servants performing their duties temporarily assume the mantle of the office they occupy. Their individual rights as citizens do not carry over into that office, they instead assume the limitations on government imposed by the law and the Constitution.
The Constitution is the law, a public official is not entitled to decide when and if they will follow the law, respect the rights of citizens, and perform their duties so long as they hold that office. I don't care if you are a ministry student who survived an abortion attempt when you go home, when you suit up and go to work as a police officer you protect that doctor walking out of that abortion clinic from harm caused by protesters with your life if need be. When your shift ends you can join the protesters.
Whether you happen to share the particular belief of the official in question is irrelevant. Public officials refusing to do their duties, follow the law and the Constitution, whether it be police, judges, congress, the president, the county clerk or a justice of the peace is a far bigger issue than anything that will be discussed at any D or R presidential debate. Yes, you absolutely should be outraged and fight against this.
"so now supporting a public official that agrees with one's own views, is denying others their rights"
If that public official is abusing their office and refusing to perform services with the result that others are denied their rights and you support that, yes, you in turn are a party to denying those rights. What does sharing the belief of the official have to do with anything? A gay couple has a right to get married so does the public official. An employee has a right to make their own health care decisions, so does the employer. An employer does not have a right to make an employees health care decisions, a public official does not have the right to refuse to selectively perform their duties based on personal beliefs rather than the law. The employer has the right to not have employees and the public official has the right to quit.
MOST of the country can't wait for a different president and by different I mean not D or R. Not one D or R candidate is willing to fight for the second amendment, support Edward Snowden and stop NSA surveillance, opposes the TPP, or stands against government backdoors in encryption. Not one of them is pushing for an end to a war on the phantom concept of "terror" and effectively training our troops to fight a civil war.
And rather than spinning down the nuclear arsenal and continuing with pushing for a global decommissioning of nuclear arms the sitting president is testing nukes in Nevada again and designing new ones.
Don't skew things in the wrong direction. "Gun" crime goes up, especially in relative terms, with less restrictive gun control but the murder rate goes down. It doesn't particularly matter what you were killed with, dead is dead. Something about stalemates and bringing a knife to a gun fight. Detroit has heavy gun control.
Other violent crime stats are mixed up because police tend to try to make some kind of charge stick when someone has a gun and any crime committed while holding a weapon gets tagged as violent whether or not violence occurred.
Let's face it, we have no real stats here. Violence rates improperly consider the presence of a weapon during the commission of a crime to be violence and most statistics improperly target GUN violence and not violent crime. That is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, obviously having guns means that there will be more cases where someone had a gun. Especially with police trying to find excuses to charge people who have them. You are no less dead when beaten to death and no less robbed when the guy was just big enough to take your stuff, you are no more raped when simply physically overpowered.
This is why people pull out murder statistics. It's a solid statistic that shows number of people who died as a result of criminal action without adding loaded qualifiers like "gun" or counting the presence of a gun during a crime where nobody was injured at all. And especially avoids counting cases where police charged the guy who defended himself or his property against a criminal.
Murder statistics are also reasonably consistent. Relaxing gun control restrictions has dropped the murder rate. Less good people die at the hands of bad guys when more good people are armed. And if shooting at an armed crowd having a large capacity magazine doesn't generally allow you to shoot more people since the crowd shoots back.
I should point out that it is pretty much impossible to find a measure for violent crime that doesn't count the mere presence of weapon as "violent."
Attempts to block gay marriage. Supporting public officials illegally refusing to grant marriage licenses based on their own religious beliefs. Denying employees medical coverage for types of treatments that are just fine by the employees beliefs but not by the employers.
All of those are things which actually deny others their rights but somehow were twisted into the person trying to limit another being denied their right to religious freedom.
His bad for implying that there actually were things which are specifically legal. There aren't, you can be arrested for any action at officer discretion these days.
Slight but significant correction. The Constitution grants government powers and gives some examples of things explicitly not granted to clarify. The government has no rights, the people are entitled to revise or replace the Constitution and revoke any authority granted by the Constitution if they should choose to do so. One of those examples is just that, the right to override all branches of government via direct representatives in the form of a jury. The government is not entitled to inflict punishment of any form upon any person no matter how phrased whether called criminal, civil, or penalty without that person having the right to ask a jury of the people to nullify that decision.
Cities which relax gun controls see dramatic decreases in crimes but there are gun restricted cities with low crime rates. Those stats are definitely muddied with and colored by agendas across the board. Those trying to boost the stats want to call every crime where someone had an arm a violent crime to skew the stats or quality crime with the tag 'gun' as if it worse to get robbed at gunpoint than knife point. The truth is, with more guns about people are more likely to have them good and bad. Obviously the more guns that are around the more gun related accidents as well. It is also true that mass shootings are only successful in a gun free or gun restricted environment and the damage is minimized when people in the crowd can shoot back.
.308 rifles which are much more powerful than the AR15. Mostly people want AR15's for target practice or self defense. The AR15 "assault rifle" which isn't a real class of gun btw is desired for entertainment and target practice and to secure the home, not from the time when they come to take our guns but from the time when a foreign invader or a civil war occurs. Or more commonly when attacked by an armed city gang or crazy pumped up ranchers.
It is certainly true that as the president said, "No self respecting hunter needs an AR15." The AR15 is powerful enough for shooting people but generally isn't considered powerful enough to ensure a clean shot on a large deer and completely useless vs a bear. Instead hunters tend to use
I think some gun control is warranted, as in not allowing convicted felons and those with mental issues to own guns. Additionally, a safe gun handling and usage course should be a high school requirement.
As for types of weapon, if the military is allowed to have it the people should be allowed to have it which is a far cry from actually being able to afford it, large arms are expensive and it would take a large number of citizens, such as a community funded volunteer militia to be able to afford big arms. It's worth remembering that a reasonably intelligent person can read a couple library books and build explosives with far more deadly potential than what the military classifies as "small arms" which is the category all the guns that gun control ever talks about. The Constitution divides military power between citizens (and no, the national guard is not it) and the state so that the few need always fear the wrath of the many. Which was wise since there is no evidence of true democracy ever occurring except on the other side of the many getting fed up with the few. Currently arms are restricted to the degree this is not the case in the US.
The worst gun control actually takes two forms. First it is in the ATF definition of a gun, which essentially limits civilian owned firearms to 18th century technology. The second is the ATF redefining essentially all maintenance and gunsmithing you'd perform on guns to constitute "gun manufacturing" never mind that you started with a gun that was recorded when manufactured and ended with just that one gun. The second is Secretary Clinton, hijacking a federal body empowered to regulate organizations exporting military grade arms and expanding the list of military grade arms to include essentially all weapons, despite the fact that the military does not use them. The AR15 is a good example, the AR15 is the demilitarized civilian version of the M16 firing mechanism. The AK is a similar type of weapon that just didn't originate in the US. The idea that these are somehow more dangerous than other civilian arms being used for hunting is ridiculous. The AR and AK mechanical designs are reliable and effective military developed designs that are good at shooting a bullet when you want and not shooting a bullet you don't want to. Those designs can be resized and put in guns ranging from the most deadly to the least deadly.
With more modern arms we could build new types of projectile weapons that aren't essentially hundreds of little bombs in our pockets. We could build technology in t
Oh my brother. That isn't a dice innovation but it's present on almost every site you browse. You should do some googling on the super cookie for instance.
It is a shame because it leads to opinions like that this should not have been reported on. I believe a team of credible experts in this area having reached this hypothesis and feeling it is a likely enough possibility that they are looking for funding to spend their time investigating it for the next few months or years is interesting news to many people who wouldn't be reading or have access to the actual peer reviewed articles. This includes many with the means to fund taking such research further.
Provided they've accurately said this is a possibility which they have not yet confirmed I see nothing wrong with that. The article on Slashdot the other day indicated they had not yet found or confirmed any such planet, only that it was consistent with the data they've reviewed so far but said it with an optimistic tone. This article says the same but with a negative tone. If they are hoping it gets the attention of someone who can fund the research, they aren't misleading anyone. If they claimed they were already there then what would they be needing funding for? Investigating further is going to cost a great deal of time and money.
Yeah, it does turn itself back on periodically. And there is still the sponsored content videos at the bottom of the page as well as partner videos mixed into the headlines. It really just turns off the advertising that existed at the time they put it in which is the big block of ads at the right of the page and a banner at the top.
They likely are also still tracking what content you visit.
If he did it would recommend just what he is suggesting, individual and randomized passwords generated using multiple character sets and that are very long.
In place a sticky note use an encrypted personal password system like keepass and secure it with one very strong and secure passphrase that is memorable. The passphrase can be quite long so you can use something you have memorized. Don't use songs everyone knows or popular phrases from sci-fi shows though. Ideally, pick something annoying, inappropriate for your age group/profession that you dislike but couldn't forget if you wanted to. Something from a topic you are not likely to ever be posting on Facebook. Don't go using something about a floral bonnet when you are a firefly fan.
You could always just use keepass
I didn't see those headlines. I saw scientists think that there may be a potential 9th planet.
I suspect it's as much that readers lack reading comprehension and gloss right over words like "may" and "potential" as that the headlines are bad.
Perhaps it would just be better if no longer give a distinction to words planet and theory and instead just treat them as exact synonyms to body and hypothesis.
Back in third grade when we learned the scientific method I don't remember a "theory" step in there anywhere. If anything calling something a theory only serves to create the illusion of factuality which is a rather ironic thing to do to the product of skepticism and rational inquiry. A still valid hypothesis should be used as the best tool we have so far but we should never drop skepticism. We wouldn't want to look back in ten thousand years and be the idiots who dropped skepticism of models which concern billions of years worth of data were unshakable after less than a century or two of inquiry.