Unemployment, which has continued the same trend without an inflection point since recovery started before Trump, is all there is to talk about. All those corporate tax savings benefited the wealthy. Mostly used for stock buybacks. Wages are flat. There was no cut in government spending, so Trump's giveaway to the already-wealthy resulted in a large increase in deficit, expected to top $1 trillion next year. Meanwhile, tariffs are hurting many sectors significantly, as well as the poor and middle class, who are hurt by the price increases. The bailout to farmers hurt by the tariffs wasn't nearly sufficient by their own account. The trade war is only going to get worse. Manufacturing still isn't coming back.
But yeah, keep harping on the unemployment figure, because that's what most important. And to still think Trump has any business savvy whatsoever, after he underperformed the market, lied about being self-made, got bailed out by his father countless times... ugh, the delusion.
Yes and I'm sure that's exactly what they'll use it for. Not tracking everyones movements, tracking who everyones with, what businesses they go to, what protests they attend, who they're with when entering their home at night, etc. And then they definitely won't abuse all the compromising information that would reveal.
The security benefits just aren't worth the dystopian authoritarian nightmare.
A psychopath not nearly as bad as the psychopaths leading us down the road to an ever worse police state by letting cops treat the population as a military enemy and routinely stomp on civil rights, simply because they also sometimes arrest real criminals who broke legitimate laws? Arresting an armed robber one day doesn't excuse backshooting an unarmed fleeing suspect the next. Cops who form a circle around a guy laying still and kick the shit out of him while yelling 'stop resisting!' don't get a pass because yesterday they busted some MS-13 killers.
How's that boot taste? Ultra-authoritarian nutters like you just won't see the consequences of police civil rights abuses until the boot is suddenly on your neck, having convinced yourself that never could happen. Plus I'm personally of the view that destroying someones life over some victimless malum prohibitum bullshit 'crime' is fundamentally evil, and since at some point almost all cops have done that, almost all cops are bad, though they also do some good things. The Nuremburg Defense of 'it's the law and I was following orders' isn't any more acceptable here.
Saudi Arabia uses Sharia Law, and the "jury" consists of educated clerics who are far less likely to be sway by appeals to emotion. Several members of the royal family have been beheaded.
As long as you don't mind issues of religion/honor/etc having a much higher priority than whether the accused is in fact guilty of the charge, yeah it's great.
Why do so many people think that if something is bad, anything different must be inherently better? It's like we've collectively forgotten that something bad can always be made even worse.
The thing here is that Magic Leap basically told us to expect something 10 years ahead of the general state of the technology now. They promised the revolutionary, not the incremental. It's entirely reasonable for people to be very disappointed in Magic Leap even if it still represents incremental progress of a promising technology, and it's their own fault.
What you're really talking about is the smartphone era; really kicked off by 2008's iPhone 3G. Dumb phones.. they were cheap enough that large swaths of even the lower middle class had one by the very early 00s, with mostly linear growth thereafter. The first data over on PewInternet.org shows 62% adoption in 2002, which fits with what I recall. A year earlier I had finally caught up with my high school classmates and gotten the monochrome classic Nokia 3310 candybar phone... it made calls, sent texts, had this neat little snake game, and...well...that was it.
Then don't you remember the Razr craze? Everyone had one of those, the first one came out in 2004 during the flipphone era. Usage was entirely different; short calls and brief text messaging when away from the landline. But it was certainly at the level of mass adoption, of course talking about the US.
Microsoft, dominant player through aggressive monopoly abuse, having recently shoved down everyone's throats an OS that hits the evil trifecta of being malware, spyware, and adware as it fights against user control and privacy at every turn... that Microsoft would compromise their ethics and principles in the name of short term profit by helping the military kill people better in our numerous pointless wars?? I'm shocked. Oh please, help me my heart has stopped from the surprise. I gasped so hard in shock I then choked too.
The problem is courts only use logic like that when it suits them. If growing a plant on your own land, for your own consumption exclusively, is interstate commerce, just because you might have otherwise bought it from a seller that might deal with other sellers in other states... then there's simply no such thing as something that's not interstate commerce if the court wants it to be.
Well I think of it as a recording right. Can I hear it for free somewhere I can legally record what I'm hearing? Does it play on the TV or Music channels on my cable subscription? Then there's really no ethical difference whether I download a copy or record it. I can legally record radio. I can legally record my tv. I'm therefore not not doing anything wrong simply because I got the recording from a download instead. Them making me double pay is wrong.
I can't keep up with when features are being torn out, but this is entirely possible on Android. I wanted to answer all local calls (same area code), and 90% of spam calls were coming from within my prefix, so I set a rule to send (xxx) xxx-* straight to voicemail, so I could still see a message if it was actually real. They weren't leaving messages, but if they started it would just go from voicemail to block.
From the way people talk in this thread, number blocking has continued to deteriorate in ability from even when I stopped trying to use recent versions.
I just can't deal with it any more. Went to white listing. Any number not in contacts gets silently sent to voicemail. Most of them don't leave messages so that's manageable for now. I have a few other rules too, and it's surprisingly hard to implement now on Android. For some reason or another, Mr. Number and all the other apps either removed or never had some of these options, even if they still work. I don't know what the deal is, I'm forced to use an ancient, years-old version of the app to get decent call blocking options, like applying different rules to pattern matched numbers and even choosing between hang up or voicemail. It seems like Google, being an advertising company themselves, must have exerted pressure. Why else would all apps in cateogry all have their call blocking abilities degraded, instead of enhanced, over time?
TDS: What the right uses to complain about the fact that every stupid or awful thing Trump does gets publicized and complained about instead of ignored on the 'if you do enough bad shit, people should stop complaining about it' rule the right favors.
Every last one of the things you claim '0%' for Republicans implement with no opposition from anyone inside their own party. Civil asset forfeiture? Some are against in, like Judge Willet who I did mention, but the only organized opposition comes from the left. All your politicians love it. Ours not so much. You should be howling that your politicians won't do what the large majority of their voters want, instead crickets, the only way you ever know is polls.br>
-25% on banning pot? False, it's only 51% as of the most recent polls (Pew), just this year inching over to that majority. But of course, the bigger problem is support for politicians that favor it far less. It's a problem on the other side, but to a far less extent. Almost as a rule, all organized pot legalization efforts are liberal groups, all opposed conservative.
-You didn't deal with mass surveillance above, since it's not under the private property right you falsely claim represented the civil asset forfeiture opinion. 50% is wildly understating it.
-In the vast majority of cases. And usually the best case scenario is silence, not calling for heads to roll.
-If you ask about the specifics of these, the opposition is unequal. Reducing sentences, eliminating cash bail, ending mandatory minimums, ending the crack/cocaine disparity, ending private prisons... these are all liberal sentence/bail reform policies, significantly opposed by the right, which at best supports token reforms. This played out very recently, republicans gutted reforms before announcing a 'reform' bill they'd support.
-No, they want resources directed away from social programs and scientific research and education etc, all instead to go to making our military larger, with few checks on executive dictation of this. Well above 50.
-You're completely ignorant here. Voter ID? A favored call of republicans, opposed nearly uniformly by the left. Why? Look into it, republicans take measures, opposed by democrats, to make it much harder for the poor to get an accepted id, even disallowing government ids the poor might have from welfare type programs.
-Republican gerrymandering has been extensively documented. You're extremely dishonest here.
-Oh, I'm glad you think that's the sum-total of all press freedom. Disingenuous ass. Also, I've never met a single republican ever who's recognized and complained that Fox News is biased and shouldn't be.
-This point is unrelated to schools. I was referring to business and housing discrimination on allegedly religious opposition. This is very strongly supported by the right, to deny service on that basis.
-Again, I think the problem here is once again your lack of familiarity. Whenever 'rights of the accused' comes out, outside of the brand new sex crime issue, it's always tough-on-crime republicans supporting the police and prosecutors over the accused.
I myself lived in rural Florida for half of my adult life. Came of age there, attended college there, then 8 years after, compared to only 7 in the nyc area (plus when under 10). Trying to claim I'm out of touch isn't going to work. I miss those people and that life a lot. You can also peruse my post history for my well documented opposition to left wing policies as well, I'm no ideologue left winger, they can't stand me.
As always, you've constructed a defense of the right entirely dependent on ignorance of reality.
To be fair on this, there is a Republican who's taken a bold stand against it: Don Willett, a judge on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. He's opposed that (sadly, dissenting), and several other of the rights awful civil rights positions. And he was on Trumps SC list... why oh why couldn't we have gotten him... he's the only (R) judge I'd ever support for SCOTUS, despite disagreeing with him on plenty of other points.
A couple issues there, first, I've heard tons of liberals calling for reforming police civil rights abuses, and crickets from the right. They're by and large all pro-police and against every measure the left proposes to restrain them. See e.g. Stop and Frisk; clear racial profiling, the left sued to stop it, the right parroted the police arguments for it.
Another issue, the military gear comes from a Pentagon surplus program. They receive it for only the cost of shipping. Civil asset forfeiture money would not limit their acquisition of military hardware. Speaking to the majorities, the left opposes this program while the right supports it. The right defends military-style SWAT raids on non-violent drug offenders, the left opposes them. The right complains about DOJ civil rights settlements, the left supports them (and Sessions rolled them back). The right defends obvious bad shoots, the left wants charges.
Sorry, but supporting and enabling police civil rights abuse is a problem with the whole right.
Obama advanced some, but not all, of those. And made others worse, especially mass surveillance. I've posted my long list of complaints of Obamas civil rights violations several times now, but it doesn't change the overall direction of the parties.
I'm certainly no fan of SJWs, but even the worst ones still support more civil liberties than the right. The right support civil asset forfeiture, the right is by far more strongly supportive of stripping 4th amendment rights, they're for continued marijuana prohibition, they're for stripping abortion rights, they're by far more strongly supportive of mass surveillance, they're more supportive of police in civil rights abuse cases, they're against sentencing reform and bail reform. Against marriage rights, discrimination protection for LGBT. For dictator-like levels of executive power. For subverting voting rights of the poor. For subverting voting rights of democrats in general, with gerrymandering. Then you have a whole list where they're both just as bad, and then a much smaller amount where they're better, such as gun rights and... what else, really? First amendment cancels out... better on free speech, worse on press freedom. Though that shifts depending on how much you think using religion to discriminate in non-religious settings is a right covered under it. Due process in limited circumstances (better for it on sex crimes, worse on all other crimes charged in courts).
The right, as always, is the bigger threat to civil liberties, to anyone who actually cares about all of them, instead of the favored subset of their party at this time.
Oh and by the way, if they do try to impeach Kavanaugh, no judge will adjudicate it, it's a purely political process conducted in Congress. If it was pursued criminally, having several people contradict you can indeed win a perjury charge. You don't need a video of him drinking to blackout and a doctor attesting to his memory loss, you just need witnesses who say they saw him do so. People are convicted exclusively on witness testimony all. the. time. I personally don't think that's a good strategy, but your claim that 'actual law' wouldn't support such a charge is false.
Wait so now TOS having the force of law is a good thing? I don't care for police using fake accounts, or police in general as they exist now, but that's a terrible idea for which the problems should be manifest.
Bullshit. SJWs are hysterical because their college Title IX regime of guilt on accusation is getting rolled back to require some basic shreds of due process. They are dead set against allowing any evidence other than the accusers word or allowing that word to be questioned. Anyone who believes for one minute this isn't desired for actual court too is a fool. They also recently gave an award to a woman for her proven-false accusation (matress girl). You're a dedicated sjw, stop lying and embrace the evisceration of due process you support.
Well you entirely misstated the goal. They don't give a shit about the miniscule percent of criminals smart enough to evade, they care about mass surveillance of the general public.
Explaining definitely helps. I can't count the number of times I've spent hours trying to find a bug, finally broke down and posted a request for help, then solve the problem myself a minute or two later.
They're already building them outside of Manhattan. I've been seeing them in Queens for months now, looked at the map and there's already hundreds between Queens, Bronx, and Brooklyn: https://www.link.nyc/find-a-li...
If you don't fight for rights when its someone you don't care about, then when that right is lost by someone you do care about, too late that's how things work now. Just like we obviously don't care about terrorists and child porn suspects going to jail, but that's whose rights are going to have to be defended in the coming fights over encryption backdoors and forced decryption, otherwise the right is then lost for everyone, not just those we don't care for.
Slashdot Mirror
Unemployment, which has continued the same trend without an inflection point since recovery started before Trump, is all there is to talk about. All those corporate tax savings benefited the wealthy. Mostly used for stock buybacks. Wages are flat. There was no cut in government spending, so Trump's giveaway to the already-wealthy resulted in a large increase in deficit, expected to top $1 trillion next year. Meanwhile, tariffs are hurting many sectors significantly, as well as the poor and middle class, who are hurt by the price increases. The bailout to farmers hurt by the tariffs wasn't nearly sufficient by their own account. The trade war is only going to get worse. Manufacturing still isn't coming back.
But yeah, keep harping on the unemployment figure, because that's what most important. And to still think Trump has any business savvy whatsoever, after he underperformed the market, lied about being self-made, got bailed out by his father countless times... ugh, the delusion.
Yes and I'm sure that's exactly what they'll use it for. Not tracking everyones movements, tracking who everyones with, what businesses they go to, what protests they attend, who they're with when entering their home at night, etc. And then they definitely won't abuse all the compromising information that would reveal.
The security benefits just aren't worth the dystopian authoritarian nightmare.
A psychopath not nearly as bad as the psychopaths leading us down the road to an ever worse police state by letting cops treat the population as a military enemy and routinely stomp on civil rights, simply because they also sometimes arrest real criminals who broke legitimate laws? Arresting an armed robber one day doesn't excuse backshooting an unarmed fleeing suspect the next. Cops who form a circle around a guy laying still and kick the shit out of him while yelling 'stop resisting!' don't get a pass because yesterday they busted some MS-13 killers.
How's that boot taste? Ultra-authoritarian nutters like you just won't see the consequences of police civil rights abuses until the boot is suddenly on your neck, having convinced yourself that never could happen.
Plus I'm personally of the view that destroying someones life over some victimless malum prohibitum bullshit 'crime' is fundamentally evil, and since at some point almost all cops have done that, almost all cops are bad, though they also do some good things. The Nuremburg Defense of 'it's the law and I was following orders' isn't any more acceptable here.
Saudi Arabia uses Sharia Law, and the "jury" consists of educated clerics who are far less likely to be sway by appeals to emotion. Several members of the royal family have been beheaded.
As long as you don't mind issues of religion/honor/etc having a much higher priority than whether the accused is in fact guilty of the charge, yeah it's great.
Why do so many people think that if something is bad, anything different must be inherently better? It's like we've collectively forgotten that something bad can always be made even worse.
The thing here is that Magic Leap basically told us to expect something 10 years ahead of the general state of the technology now. They promised the revolutionary, not the incremental. It's entirely reasonable for people to be very disappointed in Magic Leap even if it still represents incremental progress of a promising technology, and it's their own fault.
What you're really talking about is the smartphone era; really kicked off by 2008's iPhone 3G. Dumb phones.. they were cheap enough that large swaths of even the lower middle class had one by the very early 00s, with mostly linear growth thereafter. The first data over on PewInternet.org shows 62% adoption in 2002, which fits with what I recall. A year earlier I had finally caught up with my high school classmates and gotten the monochrome classic Nokia 3310 candybar phone... it made calls, sent texts, had this neat little snake game, and...well...that was it.
Then don't you remember the Razr craze? Everyone had one of those, the first one came out in 2004 during the flipphone era.
Usage was entirely different; short calls and brief text messaging when away from the landline. But it was certainly at the level of mass adoption, of course talking about the US.
Microsoft, dominant player through aggressive monopoly abuse, having recently shoved down everyone's throats an OS that hits the evil trifecta of being malware, spyware, and adware as it fights against user control and privacy at every turn... that Microsoft would compromise their ethics and principles in the name of short term profit by helping the military kill people better in our numerous pointless wars?? I'm shocked. Oh please, help me my heart has stopped from the surprise. I gasped so hard in shock I then choked too.
The problem is courts only use logic like that when it suits them. If growing a plant on your own land, for your own consumption exclusively, is interstate commerce, just because you might have otherwise bought it from a seller that might deal with other sellers in other states... then there's simply no such thing as something that's not interstate commerce if the court wants it to be.
Well I think of it as a recording right. Can I hear it for free somewhere I can legally record what I'm hearing? Does it play on the TV or Music channels on my cable subscription? Then there's really no ethical difference whether I download a copy or record it. I can legally record radio. I can legally record my tv. I'm therefore not not doing anything wrong simply because I got the recording from a download instead. Them making me double pay is wrong.
I can't keep up with when features are being torn out, but this is entirely possible on Android. I wanted to answer all local calls (same area code), and 90% of spam calls were coming from within my prefix, so I set a rule to send (xxx) xxx-* straight to voicemail, so I could still see a message if it was actually real. They weren't leaving messages, but if they started it would just go from voicemail to block.
From the way people talk in this thread, number blocking has continued to deteriorate in ability from even when I stopped trying to use recent versions.
I just can't deal with it any more. Went to white listing. Any number not in contacts gets silently sent to voicemail. Most of them don't leave messages so that's manageable for now. I have a few other rules too, and it's surprisingly hard to implement now on Android. For some reason or another, Mr. Number and all the other apps either removed or never had some of these options, even if they still work. I don't know what the deal is, I'm forced to use an ancient, years-old version of the app to get decent call blocking options, like applying different rules to pattern matched numbers and even choosing between hang up or voicemail. It seems like Google, being an advertising company themselves, must have exerted pressure. Why else would all apps in cateogry all have their call blocking abilities degraded, instead of enhanced, over time?
TDS: What the right uses to complain about the fact that every stupid or awful thing Trump does gets publicized and complained about instead of ignored on the 'if you do enough bad shit, people should stop complaining about it' rule the right favors.
Every last one of the things you claim '0%' for Republicans implement with no opposition from anyone inside their own party. Civil asset forfeiture? Some are against in, like Judge Willet who I did mention, but the only organized opposition comes from the left. All your politicians love it. Ours not so much. You should be howling that your politicians won't do what the large majority of their voters want, instead crickets, the only way you ever know is polls.br> -25% on banning pot? False, it's only 51% as of the most recent polls (Pew), just this year inching over to that majority. But of course, the bigger problem is support for politicians that favor it far less. It's a problem on the other side, but to a far less extent. Almost as a rule, all organized pot legalization efforts are liberal groups, all opposed conservative.
-You didn't deal with mass surveillance above, since it's not under the private property right you falsely claim represented the civil asset forfeiture opinion. 50% is wildly understating it.
-In the vast majority of cases. And usually the best case scenario is silence, not calling for heads to roll.
-If you ask about the specifics of these, the opposition is unequal. Reducing sentences, eliminating cash bail, ending mandatory minimums, ending the crack/cocaine disparity, ending private prisons... these are all liberal sentence/bail reform policies, significantly opposed by the right, which at best supports token reforms. This played out very recently, republicans gutted reforms before announcing a 'reform' bill they'd support.
-No, they want resources directed away from social programs and scientific research and education etc, all instead to go to making our military larger, with few checks on executive dictation of this. Well above 50.
-You're completely ignorant here. Voter ID? A favored call of republicans, opposed nearly uniformly by the left. Why? Look into it, republicans take measures, opposed by democrats, to make it much harder for the poor to get an accepted id, even disallowing government ids the poor might have from welfare type programs.
-Republican gerrymandering has been extensively documented. You're extremely dishonest here.
-Oh, I'm glad you think that's the sum-total of all press freedom. Disingenuous ass. Also, I've never met a single republican ever who's recognized and complained that Fox News is biased and shouldn't be.
-This point is unrelated to schools. I was referring to business and housing discrimination on allegedly religious opposition. This is very strongly supported by the right, to deny service on that basis.
-Again, I think the problem here is once again your lack of familiarity. Whenever 'rights of the accused' comes out, outside of the brand new sex crime issue, it's always tough-on-crime republicans supporting the police and prosecutors over the accused.
I myself lived in rural Florida for half of my adult life. Came of age there, attended college there, then 8 years after, compared to only 7 in the nyc area (plus when under 10). Trying to claim I'm out of touch isn't going to work. I miss those people and that life a lot. You can also peruse my post history for my well documented opposition to left wing policies as well, I'm no ideologue left winger, they can't stand me.
As always, you've constructed a defense of the right entirely dependent on ignorance of reality.
But then they'd be agreeing with Mike Pence. Between a rock and a hard place.
To be fair on this, there is a Republican who's taken a bold stand against it: Don Willett, a judge on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. He's opposed that (sadly, dissenting), and several other of the rights awful civil rights positions. And he was on Trumps SC list... why oh why couldn't we have gotten him... he's the only (R) judge I'd ever support for SCOTUS, despite disagreeing with him on plenty of other points.
A couple issues there, first, I've heard tons of liberals calling for reforming police civil rights abuses, and crickets from the right. They're by and large all pro-police and against every measure the left proposes to restrain them. See e.g. Stop and Frisk; clear racial profiling, the left sued to stop it, the right parroted the police arguments for it.
Another issue, the military gear comes from a Pentagon surplus program. They receive it for only the cost of shipping. Civil asset forfeiture money would not limit their acquisition of military hardware. Speaking to the majorities, the left opposes this program while the right supports it. The right defends military-style SWAT raids on non-violent drug offenders, the left opposes them. The right complains about DOJ civil rights settlements, the left supports them (and Sessions rolled them back). The right defends obvious bad shoots, the left wants charges.
Sorry, but supporting and enabling police civil rights abuse is a problem with the whole right.
Obama advanced some, but not all, of those. And made others worse, especially mass surveillance. I've posted my long list of complaints of Obamas civil rights violations several times now, but it doesn't change the overall direction of the parties.
I'm certainly no fan of SJWs, but even the worst ones still support more civil liberties than the right. The right support civil asset forfeiture, the right is by far more strongly supportive of stripping 4th amendment rights, they're for continued marijuana prohibition, they're for stripping abortion rights, they're by far more strongly supportive of mass surveillance, they're more supportive of police in civil rights abuse cases, they're against sentencing reform and bail reform. Against marriage rights, discrimination protection for LGBT. For dictator-like levels of executive power. For subverting voting rights of the poor. For subverting voting rights of democrats in general, with gerrymandering. Then you have a whole list where they're both just as bad, and then a much smaller amount where they're better, such as gun rights and... what else, really? First amendment cancels out... better on free speech, worse on press freedom. Though that shifts depending on how much you think using religion to discriminate in non-religious settings is a right covered under it. Due process in limited circumstances (better for it on sex crimes, worse on all other crimes charged in courts).
The right, as always, is the bigger threat to civil liberties, to anyone who actually cares about all of them, instead of the favored subset of their party at this time.
Oh and by the way, if they do try to impeach Kavanaugh, no judge will adjudicate it, it's a purely political process conducted in Congress. If it was pursued criminally, having several people contradict you can indeed win a perjury charge. You don't need a video of him drinking to blackout and a doctor attesting to his memory loss, you just need witnesses who say they saw him do so. People are convicted exclusively on witness testimony all. the. time. I personally don't think that's a good strategy, but your claim that 'actual law' wouldn't support such a charge is false.
Wait so now TOS having the force of law is a good thing? I don't care for police using fake accounts, or police in general as they exist now, but that's a terrible idea for which the problems should be manifest.
Bullshit. SJWs are hysterical because their college Title IX regime of guilt on accusation is getting rolled back to require some basic shreds of due process. They are dead set against allowing any evidence other than the accusers word or allowing that word to be questioned. Anyone who believes for one minute this isn't desired for actual court too is a fool. They also recently gave an award to a woman for her proven-false accusation (matress girl). You're a dedicated sjw, stop lying and embrace the evisceration of due process you support.
Well you entirely misstated the goal. They don't give a shit about the miniscule percent of criminals smart enough to evade, they care about mass surveillance of the general public.
Explaining definitely helps. I can't count the number of times I've spent hours trying to find a bug, finally broke down and posted a request for help, then solve the problem myself a minute or two later.
Those problems are nothing, some of them were playing a creepy Mr. Softee jingle, after they cut off web browsing on the built in tablet after people started watching porn and masturbating on them.
They're already building them outside of Manhattan. I've been seeing them in Queens for months now, looked at the map and there's already hundreds between Queens, Bronx, and Brooklyn: https://www.link.nyc/find-a-li...
If you don't fight for rights when its someone you don't care about, then when that right is lost by someone you do care about, too late that's how things work now. Just like we obviously don't care about terrorists and child porn suspects going to jail, but that's whose rights are going to have to be defended in the coming fights over encryption backdoors and forced decryption, otherwise the right is then lost for everyone, not just those we don't care for.