The problem is not that either of us thinks that running into rocks is a good idea, it's that we disagree about where the rocks are. I'm not convinced that the Affordable Healthcare Act is going to be the horrible burden on business people that they think it will be. The right has been crying wolf over every progressive policy that has come down the pike, claiming it's going to be the end of business and Mom and Apple Pie every time. But if you look at it, the economy has done better under Democratic administrations than it has under Republican ones. We do better when the middle class is going strong, not when the wealthy get to bleed it dry while sanctimoniously crying about "job creators" (who seem to like to create more jobs in India and China than here in the US). Private sector employment is doing fairly well under Obama, perhaps not as well as we'd like, but improving. Where a lot of the employment picture becomes dark is in the public sector, where due in large part to Republican state governments and obstructionism at the national level, a large number of public employees have received their pink slips.
As for the debt, you might want to watch this 3 min. video (or maybe not, if your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by facts):
Bush was the one who squandered the surplus Clinton left him, and plunged us into most of the debt we're carrying today, what with massive tax cuts that benefited mostly wealthy people and a pair of expensive wars (Afghanistan, I'll concede, may have had a point, but Iraq was completely senseless). And Romney's team was made up of a lot of familiar faces from the Bush administration. Obama has added to the debt, in his efforts to clean up the mess he inherited, true. But he isn't even 20% responsible for the size of today's debt (if you disagree, show me where that video has gone wrong, please).
You didn't read TFA, did you? She didn't post her own sexual orientation on Facebook. She had everything locked down as much as possible. What happened was that the owner of an open group (the "Queer Choir" group) added her to that group. Since it was open, notifications of her addition to that group were broadcast to ALL OF HER FRIENDS. She had nothing to do with it, her only mistake was letting the group leader know that she was on Facebook, and he took care of the rest for her. To be fair, he was a newbie and didn't know better. But Facebook should NOT automatically broadcast information like that to each of her friends. She should be allowed to control what information goes out, and she tried within the limits Facebook offered her, but was thwarted by that loophole.
Depends on how many short clips of objectionable material he has to watch. He still gets plenty of disturbing images planted in his mind, even if he shuts each one off just as soon as he figures out that the person's guts are being spattered or the child is getting raped. He still has to watch long enough to tell what's going on.
It's Google's business because the law (at least in the US) says it is. In TFA, the author mentions that by law, child porn in particular has to be taken down within 24 hours (I'm not sure what laws apply to other types of offensive material). To do that, someone needs to review it to determine what it is and whether it runs afoul of the law.
It's not Google's job (or intent, as far as I can tell) to determine what we can and can't see. But they do have to follow the law or face whatever consequences the government chooses to impose for failing to do so.
True, but women who are not in a consensual sexual relationship and don't anticipate getting into one soon are less likely to be taking the pill. There are medical reasons for taking the pill that have nothing to do with contraception, but if a woman doesn't have a condition that calls for it, she's not likely to be taking the pill "just in case" she might get laid some time down the road. There are risks from side effects, and if there's not a particular reason for a woman to be taking the pill, she's better off not taking it until and unless she gets into a relationship she thinks might lead to sex. Some women are very sexually active and might take the pill by default, but many are not and may not expect to engage in sex until her perception of a relationship reaches a certain stage.
Why would there be an "evolutionary arms race"? Unless offspring resulting from rape are somehow less viable than offspring resulting from consensual sex, and rapists pass on their proclivity to commit rape to their offspring, there's no evolutionary pressure one way or the other. Evolution operates because of natural selection; if an inherited trait is survival-neutral, there's no selection for or against that trait.
Bear in mind that I was merely posting a link to the article that the GP didn't bother to link to; I wasn't endorsing it. I was a lot better off in 2005, before my tech career imploded and I had to take a security guard job at less than a third of what I was making at HP in order to survive. So no, I'm not planning to regress any further and apply for a job at Mickey D's so I can have "more disposable income".:)
Thanks, I found the article (since the GP didn't bother to provide a link to where it could be found), but didn't have time to dig deeper into it yesterday. My gut feeling was that the author keeps using the words "disposable income", but I don't think they mean what he thinks they mean. A lot of the benefits he cited are not direct cash subsidies, and shouldn't really be counted as "income" (disposable or otherwise).
Problem is, many (if not most) "internet haterz" are just trolling, acting out, and generally trying to be disruptive. They're not being honest, just spiteful.
I'd have liked to have been dressed like the shooter, actually. I doubt being armed and dressed in normal civilian clothes would have saved me from harm, and I probably would have drawn his attention by shooting at him and having my bullets bounce off his body armor.
And the hero shooting in the dark and smoke (from the gas canisters the shooter set off) would have found a clear target for a clean kill past the body armor and helmet the shooter was wearing.... how?
Slashdot Mirror
Not all of it. There is plenty of land above the Arctic Circle covered in ice. The ice covering Greenland, for one example.
-Mike
Because of cities and massive population on the coastlines?
-Mike
[blockquote]Who on earth thought that was a good idea?[/blockquote]
Who do you think? Marketdroids.
-Mike
The problem is not that either of us thinks that running into rocks is a good idea, it's that we disagree about where the rocks are. I'm not convinced that the Affordable Healthcare Act is going to be the horrible burden on business people that they think it will be. The right has been crying wolf over every progressive policy that has come down the pike, claiming it's going to be the end of business and Mom and Apple Pie every time. But if you look at it, the economy has done better under Democratic administrations than it has under Republican ones. We do better when the middle class is going strong, not when the wealthy get to bleed it dry while sanctimoniously crying about "job creators" (who seem to like to create more jobs in India and China than here in the US). Private sector employment is doing fairly well under Obama, perhaps not as well as we'd like, but improving. Where a lot of the employment picture becomes dark is in the public sector, where due in large part to Republican state governments and obstructionism at the national level, a large number of public employees have received their pink slips.
As for the debt, you might want to watch this 3 min. video (or maybe not, if your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused by facts):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcvLHHMC4iI
Bush was the one who squandered the surplus Clinton left him, and plunged us into most of the debt we're carrying today, what with massive tax cuts that benefited mostly wealthy people and a pair of expensive wars (Afghanistan, I'll concede, may have had a point, but Iraq was completely senseless). And Romney's team was made up of a lot of familiar faces from the Bush administration. Obama has added to the debt, in his efforts to clean up the mess he inherited, true. But he isn't even 20% responsible for the size of today's debt (if you disagree, show me where that video has gone wrong, please).
-Mike
So, did you find a good recipe? Hope you're enjoying it.
So, how is that heaping plate of crow tasting?
You didn't read TFA, did you? She didn't post her own sexual orientation on Facebook. She had everything locked down as much as possible. What happened was that the owner of an open group (the "Queer Choir" group) added her to that group. Since it was open, notifications of her addition to that group were broadcast to ALL OF HER FRIENDS. She had nothing to do with it, her only mistake was letting the group leader know that she was on Facebook, and he took care of the rest for her. To be fair, he was a newbie and didn't know better. But Facebook should NOT automatically broadcast information like that to each of her friends. She should be allowed to control what information goes out, and she tried within the limits Facebook offered her, but was thwarted by that loophole.
-Mike
I was just considering caving in to the relentless "get on Facebook" drumbeat I've been hearing from friends, relatives and people I do business with.
This article showed me why being on Facebook AT FUCKING ALL is a VERY BAD IDEA!
Depends on how many short clips of objectionable material he has to watch. He still gets plenty of disturbing images planted in his mind, even if he shuts each one off just as soon as he figures out that the person's guts are being spattered or the child is getting raped. He still has to watch long enough to tell what's going on.
It's Google's business because the law (at least in the US) says it is. In TFA, the author mentions that by law, child porn in particular has to be taken down within 24 hours (I'm not sure what laws apply to other types of offensive material). To do that, someone needs to review it to determine what it is and whether it runs afoul of the law.
It's not Google's job (or intent, as far as I can tell) to determine what we can and can't see. But they do have to follow the law or face whatever consequences the government chooses to impose for failing to do so.
True, but women who are not in a consensual sexual relationship and don't anticipate getting into one soon are less likely to be taking the pill. There are medical reasons for taking the pill that have nothing to do with contraception, but if a woman doesn't have a condition that calls for it, she's not likely to be taking the pill "just in case" she might get laid some time down the road. There are risks from side effects, and if there's not a particular reason for a woman to be taking the pill, she's better off not taking it until and unless she gets into a relationship she thinks might lead to sex. Some women are very sexually active and might take the pill by default, but many are not and may not expect to engage in sex until her perception of a relationship reaches a certain stage.
Why would there be an "evolutionary arms race"? Unless offspring resulting from rape are somehow less viable than offspring resulting from consensual sex, and rapists pass on their proclivity to commit rape to their offspring, there's no evolutionary pressure one way or the other. Evolution operates because of natural selection; if an inherited trait is survival-neutral, there's no selection for or against that trait.
Oh, okay, fine, less than that. That's what I get for trying to be funny before reading on.
Yeah. You'd probably barf first, though.
Bear in mind that I was merely posting a link to the article that the GP didn't bother to link to; I wasn't endorsing it. I was a lot better off in 2005, before my tech career imploded and I had to take a security guard job at less than a third of what I was making at HP in order to survive. So no, I'm not planning to regress any further and apply for a job at Mickey D's so I can have "more disposable income". :)
Thanks, I found the article (since the GP didn't bother to provide a link to where it could be found), but didn't have time to dig deeper into it yesterday. My gut feeling was that the author keeps using the words "disposable income", but I don't think they mean what he thinks they mean. A lot of the benefits he cited are not direct cash subsidies, and shouldn't really be counted as "income" (disposable or otherwise).
Never mind; it wasn't on the Current, it was at examiner.com
Easy on the eyes... really hard on the ears!
I can't find the article; searching the site for "disposable income" turns up 0 results. Can you provide a direct link, please?
Problem is, many (if not most) "internet haterz" are just trolling, acting out, and generally trying to be disruptive. They're not being honest, just spiteful.
I'd have liked to have been dressed like the shooter, actually. I doubt being armed and dressed in normal civilian clothes would have saved me from harm, and I probably would have drawn his attention by shooting at him and having my bullets bounce off his body armor.
He probably thought he killed a lot more, because many of the people dropped either voluntarily or when they were wounded by the gunfire.
And the hero shooting in the dark and smoke (from the gas canisters the shooter set off) would have found a clear target for a clean kill past the body armor and helmet the shooter was wearing.... how?
Er, did you read the part where it says "Caffeine linked to lower skin cancer risk"...?
And I'm at the point where I now make more than that as a security guard/supervisor. Riiiiiight!