Becoming exterminated by humans (whatever animals or people groups) are also natural and evolution.
That doesn't necessarily make it great or in our interest.
It's my subjective idea what having all the variate around make life on the planet more interesting. And I'd say it's worth a lot to keep it that way.
You're of course free to think different. Maybe one could argue some future robotic life with better energy creation and capability to spread through space is superior and as such all the biological crap we've got now is inferior and useless and it's ok to lose it.
Of course we should and it may be worth "any amount of money" if that answer the question...
Having an actual more diverse world in the non-leftist way totally have a value and humans killed most of them in the first place.
Now if we talked people groups and culling away the mix-breeds then I could see how some would be upset. But then again.. not mixing shit up in the first place or even suggesting there's different people living in different places in the world upset those people too. (And supposedly it's very upsetting if some people on a pacific island had elected(?) the dad of Pippi Longstocking as their king but of course(?) totally fine to have a Muslim or black person as a representator in the Swedish parliament. Because double standards and hypocrisy and shit doesn't have to be logical, just, consistent or make any sense whatsoever.)
Put the filtering at user rather than group level. No need to moderate group content if you've hidden the users you think behave poorly. But I assume each user should do it themselves or else people are shut down.
Yeah. We also get flooded by human parasites (avoidable) and stopped outcompete the world and you can't really get a job and work yourself rich here. You need to own something to get rich. The income taxes are massive. Capital taxes aren't. Heritage taxes are 0.
They are for immigrants to preserve their identity and separate themselves out and fight against the other group and to generate statistics based on ethnicity / sex to make wild claims about discrimination and point out "injustice" (unequal outcome) and think slavery, colonialism and the spread of western ideas to be bad, but doing the same for white people aren't ok and to let it all happen to us are just fine.
They don't make any sense whatsoever beyond looking at them as socialists who want equal outcome for all. Because that's their true value. Not that of not bothering with race, sex, rights, criminality, equality, lack of discrimination, democracy and what not. It's all BS.
There is actually a simple solution to the problem. Asylum, ok. Become criminal and you're out. You can leave on your own or you get flown out of the country, and if nobody takes you back, the sea does.
Do it thrice and crime rates will plummet.
Same with boat refugees. Sink 3 boats and it stops.Immediately.
It could had been done. As could sane laws for who are allowed in. But that haven't been the case.
In Sweden "equality" has reached municipal and constitutional law and possibly in 2010 they when they started the last wave of crazy they also put in there that no Swedish citizen could be expelled from Sweden.
As such municipals are paying to provide for illegal immigrants as well and once people get citizenship you can't force them to leave and in the courts sometimes they don't think expulsion is appropriate for the crime, other times they may not ask for it though they are supposed to (possibly because they are "humanist" or "don't think it would carry through" anyway but they aren't supposed to consider that) and Sweden don't deport people under all conditions and to all places so it may not happen anyway.
We've got multiple tens of thousands of mostly Afghani men in Sweden who have (falsely) claimed to be children because they in general lack rights of asylum. They are still here and adults now and lack right of asylum but still we've got all these mostly women whining about how they should be allowed to stay and of course others aren't really free to speak their mind because of legal and social situations but also the general population has been told lies where these people originally was "lone-coming refugee children" and later become just "lone-coming children" and now just are "lone arrivals" or "youths who came alone" but it's still the same people and back during the most crazy period 2014-2015 the propaganda about how every fucking person was a refugee and had to come here has of course changed how people think so if you say "lone-comer" people will likely think "oh so it's one of those young men from Afghanistan" but with the old value of that person since they have been taught they are refugees.
Also we've got one young girl belonging to the same group which are already allowed to stay which arrange lots of demonstrations and meetings with them and call for them to be allowed to stay and she and their group has made claims like "Sweden shouldn't sent people to their death!" which of course isn't true even if they were sent back to Iran or wherever they came from. She's even admitted herself that she doesn't mean biological death but "psychological death." Similarly #vistårinteut (#wecantstandit) made their own charts about how the people from Afghanistan who have had their age written up or become over 18 years of age only had been seen as having the right of asylum in 4-5% of the cases by the Migration office and of course used that as propaganda to demand that many more / all should be allowed to stay rather than just so few. But the alternative interpretation of course is that yes, only 4-5% of them have the right of asylum. As such a very large majority of them should be kicked out of Sweden.
In Sweden the migration office also paid 1900 SEK / day for lone-coming refugee children and the group they argue if they should be allowed to stay are those who came before some date in November 2015 where they kinda decided to try to stop the large amount of asylum applications and made a line for whom would get to stay under old conditions/laws and who would get to stay / be judged by new ones. So they have been here a very long time and 1900 SEK / day is $84000 / year, some of them cost even more because so many come back then that it really was the sellers market as for how to house them and such. So they have cost an insane amount of money already on false claims of being children and refugees.
If you want open borders you should remove all welfare and positive rights. It's by no means fair to make the Swedi
How about not letting others invade our countries in the first place?
I'm from Sweden which have had the most extreme immigration politics and where this together with Germany may be the hardest subject to discuss whatsoever but even here the people have always been more for less immigrants rather than more and with our current immigration politics the EU "worries" that we'll make it permanent.
What is this EU / that person / organ and why it worries about it?
Sweden has been the most pro-immigration in the EU and taken the largest share per capita and yet somehow that's not enough?
Not even the Swedish or German people wanted this let alone others in the saner parts of EU and still for whatever reason it's something we should have? Why? Decided by whom? Once again: Why? Where's the democratic foundation for that decision?
Call it hatred all you want but it's fairly obvious Europeans from non-Muslim countries on average doesn't want Muslims and Islam to come and affect society, take control, replace our people. That may have been true for Eastern Europeans, former Yugoslavs and Africans too.
Regardless of whatever that's because of values, ethnicity, religion, educational level or whatever what's the problem?
Even if you are (classical) liberal you can respect ownership and as such our right to our countries or plots of land. If you consider every plot of land privately owned then that could of course be sold to whomever by the rightful owner but this is about robbing the natives of the land to pay for the invasion of their countries, loss of their sovereignty, people, identity and influence of their own land which isn't the same. And even if you are a collectivist and base that of state & democracy shouldn't the people of the state in question be in control of what they want to do?
Call it hatred, racism and neo-nazism all you want but it's not necessarily true and it doesn't make it wrong and the opposite right regardless. The threats of things like civil-war, rising belief in nationalism, expression of hatred, possibly calls for discrimination and so on is just possible end results to try to control and solve the situation once our lands have already been filled with immigrants we didn't wanted here. But why were they let in in the first place? Why are we flooded? That's the real problem. They shouldn't be here as far as the original population wants. As for whatever you controller the borders originally or forced/encouraged them to go home and similarly forced them to assimilate rather than staying with their original identity and behavior is kinda irrelevant for reaching what the original people actually wanted.
Of course the crazy traitors who encourage this view it as a problem as long as our countries have a majority of natives who can feel this way and as such it need to be flooded even more until we lose democratic control over our lands. But how isn't fighting both the traitors and the immigrants you didn't wanted actually somewhat justified in that scenario?
Slashdot Mirror
Graphics cards has done fine.
Ryzen did too.
The problem is lack of competition.
See what Nvidia do now as far as new models go.
It's the first Intel chip which refuses to run Java?
Becoming exterminated by humans (whatever animals or people groups) are also natural and evolution.
That doesn't necessarily make it great or in our interest.
It's my subjective idea what having all the variate around make life on the planet more interesting. And I'd say it's worth a lot to keep it that way.
You're of course free to think different. Maybe one could argue some future robotic life with better energy creation and capability to spread through space is superior and as such all the biological crap we've got now is inferior and useless and it's ok to lose it.
But it would be sad and boring.
Of course we should and it may be worth "any amount of money" if that answer the question ...
Having an actual more diverse world in the non-leftist way totally have a value and humans killed most of them in the first place.
Now if we talked people groups and culling away the mix-breeds then I could see how some would be upset. But then again .. not mixing shit up in the first place or even suggesting there's different people living in different places in the world upset those people too. (And supposedly it's very upsetting if some people on a pacific island had elected(?) the dad of Pippi Longstocking as their king but of course(?) totally fine to have a Muslim or black person as a representator in the Swedish parliament. Because double standards and hypocrisy and shit doesn't have to be logical, just, consistent or make any sense whatsoever.)
Don't seem to be true.
Sad you had to get an earth-ruining president because media and the left all around the world is such lying bastards.
"Apple takes your money, not your data"
(Then again vendor lockin with photo software.)
They just revealed another side-channel attack.
Best is likely to buy some future product which don't have these faults. Hard to do now though.
Put the filtering at user rather than group level. No need to moderate group content if you've hidden the users you think behave poorly. But I assume each user should do it themselves or else people are shut down.
Here in Sweden the Swedish truckers had been out competed by low wage work force from east Europe. Maybe their trucks doesn't cut it in Norway.
What about ad defense? Against all sizes of groups of people ...
That's what I do.
I don't have an ebookreader or tablet though so I haven't read them.
But I for sure do buy them. Lots of them.
Online/torrent would also be an alternative but on HB you get 30-60 issues for $15 or something so ..
Yeah. We also get flooded by human parasites (avoidable) and stopped outcompete the world and you can't really get a job and work yourself rich here. You need to own something to get rich. The income taxes are massive. Capital taxes aren't. Heritage taxes are 0.
That's a larger problem for Europe. And actual middle-east and africa.
LOL.
The typical scenario is that the central planned allocation is wrong.
The free market not so much / at all.
Since there's demand for these currencies people provide them.
Killing bugs isn't a good thing.
That it kill bugs in a large area isn't positive.
Not between Intel before and after the patches but Intel after against Ryzen and ThreadRipper now/after.
Sure I know Intel perform worse with an SSD now and possibly even worse with virtualization but can I please get to see how Ryzen perform with it too?
You can have flat surfaces and very few polygons.
There's no problem rendering at that resolution.
But the scene won't have a lot of details in it if you don't put them there of course.
Also it won't look "real" if you don't. But games don't really have to look very real to be fun. Fun is a different thing than looking real.
That's what they all want after all.
They are for immigrants to preserve their identity and separate themselves out and fight against the other group and to generate statistics based on ethnicity / sex to make wild claims about discrimination and point out "injustice" (unequal outcome) and think slavery, colonialism and the spread of western ideas to be bad, but doing the same for white people aren't ok and to let it all happen to us are just fine.
They don't make any sense whatsoever beyond looking at them as socialists who want equal outcome for all. Because that's their true value. Not that of not bothering with race, sex, rights, criminality, equality, lack of discrimination, democracy and what not. It's all BS.
There is actually a simple solution to the problem. Asylum, ok. Become criminal and you're out. You can leave on your own or you get flown out of the country, and if nobody takes you back, the sea does.
Do it thrice and crime rates will plummet.
Same with boat refugees. Sink 3 boats and it stops.Immediately.
It could had been done. As could sane laws for who are allowed in.
But that haven't been the case.
In Sweden "equality" has reached municipal and constitutional law and possibly in 2010 they when they started the last wave of crazy they also put in there that no Swedish citizen could be expelled from Sweden.
As such municipals are paying to provide for illegal immigrants as well and once people get citizenship you can't force them to leave and in the courts sometimes they don't think expulsion is appropriate for the crime, other times they may not ask for it though they are supposed to (possibly because they are "humanist" or "don't think it would carry through" anyway but they aren't supposed to consider that) and Sweden don't deport people under all conditions and to all places so it may not happen anyway.
We've got multiple tens of thousands of mostly Afghani men in Sweden who have (falsely) claimed to be children because they in general lack rights of asylum. They are still here and adults now and lack right of asylum but still we've got all these mostly women whining about how they should be allowed to stay and of course others aren't really free to speak their mind because of legal and social situations but also the general population has been told lies where these people originally was "lone-coming refugee children" and later become just "lone-coming children" and now just are "lone arrivals" or "youths who came alone" but it's still the same people and back during the most crazy period 2014-2015 the propaganda about how every fucking person was a refugee and had to come here has of course changed how people think so if you say "lone-comer" people will likely think "oh so it's one of those young men from Afghanistan" but with the old value of that person since they have been taught they are refugees.
Also we've got one young girl belonging to the same group which are already allowed to stay which arrange lots of demonstrations and meetings with them and call for them to be allowed to stay and she and their group has made claims like "Sweden shouldn't sent people to their death!" which of course isn't true even if they were sent back to Iran or wherever they came from. She's even admitted herself that she doesn't mean biological death but "psychological death."
Similarly #vistårinteut (#wecantstandit) made their own charts about how the people from Afghanistan who have had their age written up or become over 18 years of age only had been seen as having the right of asylum in 4-5% of the cases by the Migration office and of course used that as propaganda to demand that many more / all should be allowed to stay rather than just so few. But the alternative interpretation of course is that yes, only 4-5% of them have the right of asylum. As such a very large majority of them should be kicked out of Sweden.
In Sweden the migration office also paid 1900 SEK / day for lone-coming refugee children and the group they argue if they should be allowed to stay are those who came before some date in November 2015 where they kinda decided to try to stop the large amount of asylum applications and made a line for whom would get to stay under old conditions/laws and who would get to stay / be judged by new ones. So they have been here a very long time and 1900 SEK / day is $84000 / year, some of them cost even more because so many come back then that it really was the sellers market as for how to house them and such. So they have cost an insane amount of money already on false claims of being children and refugees.
If you want open borders you should remove all welfare and positive rights. It's by no means fair to make the Swedi
.. though. I assume you were kidding but moderated interesting so ..
You still sleep when you want too.
Some would just wake up at 14 and others at 22 but it could still be perfectly normal.
I think it was a good idea.
It's OK with the day starting at 14 in some places.
How about not letting others invade our countries in the first place?
I'm from Sweden which have had the most extreme immigration politics and where this together with Germany may be the hardest subject to discuss whatsoever but even here the people have always been more for less immigrants rather than more and with our current immigration politics the EU "worries" that we'll make it permanent.
What is this EU / that person / organ and why it worries about it?
Sweden has been the most pro-immigration in the EU and taken the largest share per capita and yet somehow that's not enough?
Not even the Swedish or German people wanted this let alone others in the saner parts of EU and still for whatever reason it's something we should have? Why? Decided by whom? Once again: Why? Where's the democratic foundation for that decision?
Call it hatred all you want but it's fairly obvious Europeans from non-Muslim countries on average doesn't want Muslims and Islam to come and affect society, take control, replace our people. That may have been true for Eastern Europeans, former Yugoslavs and Africans too.
Regardless of whatever that's because of values, ethnicity, religion, educational level or whatever what's the problem?
Even if you are (classical) liberal you can respect ownership and as such our right to our countries or plots of land. If you consider every plot of land privately owned then that could of course be sold to whomever by the rightful owner but this is about robbing the natives of the land to pay for the invasion of their countries, loss of their sovereignty, people, identity and influence of their own land which isn't the same. And even if you are a collectivist and base that of state & democracy shouldn't the people of the state in question be in control of what they want to do?
Call it hatred, racism and neo-nazism all you want but it's not necessarily true and it doesn't make it wrong and the opposite right regardless.
The threats of things like civil-war, rising belief in nationalism, expression of hatred, possibly calls for discrimination and so on is just possible end results to try to control and solve the situation once our lands have already been filled with immigrants we didn't wanted here.
But why were they let in in the first place? Why are we flooded? That's the real problem. They shouldn't be here as far as the original population wants. As for whatever you controller the borders originally or forced/encouraged them to go home and similarly forced them to assimilate rather than staying with their original identity and behavior is kinda irrelevant for reaching what the original people actually wanted.
Of course the crazy traitors who encourage this view it as a problem as long as our countries have a majority of natives who can feel this way and as such it need to be flooded even more until we lose democratic control over our lands. But how isn't fighting both the traitors and the immigrants you didn't wanted actually somewhat justified in that scenario?
We shouldn't mess with what's in the ground too or redistribute heat.
We still just have one earth and the less we destroy the better.
.. has been wrong a lot. But likely (much) longer.