And Citizens United is now locked in for the next generation
It should be locked in forever The idea that people do not have the same rights when acting in concert as they do when acting alone is abhorrent, and that's exactly what you're saying when you talk about stifling "corporate speech."
From that point of view, the New York Times should not enjoy the freedom of the press. It's nonsensical.
Yes, there are absolutely problems with money in politics. Stifling speech doesn't fix those.
Handguns are mostly worthless as a means of hunting either for food or sport. The simple fact is that handguns are made to kill.
Some thoughts on the above:
1. Apparently "hunting" is not "killing" in your lexicon?
2. Some handguns (though none I can think of made by Glock) are indeed used for hunting. This is what cartridges like.500S&W and.454Casull are for. I have friends who take deer or boar with them.
3. There are other shooting sports beside hunting. Glocks appear quite frequently in some of them.
4. Some handguns are made specifically for the purpose of punching holes in paper or knocking over steel plates, rather than for killing things. While they're capable of the latter, it would be akin to using a screwdriver as a hammer.
A good example of how this could be done is the evolution of the Google home page. Without Googling for screenshots, who can actually tell the difference between the Google home page now and then?
I don't need to view screenshots.. I just have to look at page rendering times and view the page source. Google's homepage used to be lightweight and simple, and now it's a bloated mess of javascript.
At least their wildcard bullshit points at localhost, which is better than some ad server, or some malware hosting site (but I repeat myself). It would be worse.
Or look at California. If you put a flash suppressor on your gun, it's now an assault weapon because it is 10 times more deadly.
Reducto ad absurdum. The gun isn't more deadly because of the flash suppressor. Adding a flash suppressor is useful only to people who want to kill and get away without being caught. This has an obvious legit military use, but no legitimate purposes for civilians. That's why it's classified an assault weapon, because only the military has a legitimate reason to use it.
A flash suppressor is designed to reduce the muzzle flash experienced by the shooter, not to make the muzzle flash less observable. Thus, your argument fails.
That was my thought as well... EA Access is a hell of a deal ($60 a year, and just about every EA game seems to go into it eventually). For the cost of one game a year, you're getting EA's entire catalog about six months after release.
Teaching critical thinking in school can't stand up to the power of indoctrination by Mom, Dad, and God at home. Religious parents actively work to ensure that their children see them (and the church) as the only authoritative source of truth.
Way to paint with a broad brush. Catholic schools are full of the children of religious parents, and the instructors are usually priests and nuns. The nuns will kick your damned ass if you're intellectually lazy. Whenever I reflect on my education, I always thank Sister Catherine Joseph, one of my 6th grade teachers. She was a mean woman, and I hated her guts, but she was one of the best teachers I've ever known. She taught two subjects: Science and Religion, and she taught both of them rigorously, and well.
Never underestimate someone who believes they have been commanded by god to turn your child into a thinking, reasoning, well educated member of society.
While I agree with you that the guy you're responding to is just splitting hairs, you picked a particularly bad example for your retort (hint: "Continental Congress.")
You understood my intent perfectly. "The left" is how they are labelled, but most people outside of the US do not think the US has a left wing. It was a convenient label (which is generally accepted in political debate in the US, regardless of whether or not it is accurate) and not a political statement, so I quoted it to indicate such.
If you voted for someone who you thought was a walking disaster you are a complete idiot and I really don't care what you think.
As noted elsewhere in this thread, I did not vote for the walking disaster.
This isn't about the last election, this isn't about Hillary, this is about Nazis... This is about blatant out right racist assholes who should not be given the insane amount of protection that they are given. The KKK can parade around "openly" exposing death to tons of American citizens, people like you and me and they are protected for it but if a few black people get together to say "hey, how about you stop shooting us in record numbers" and they get beaten and arrested. That shit is fucked up... that is as anit-American as it gets.
These aren't people who are simply fiscally conservative, they are hate mongers, they would have huge swaths of Americans eliminated simply for the color of their skin, and if you support them, if you stand with the hate mongers, then you are just as bad as they are.
I do thank you for the civility of saying "if" a lot in your post. Unlike the other guy who keeps calling me a racist, at least you have the courtesy to assume it's possible that I might not be one.
We agree entirely about the right to protest. It IS outrageous that people are being shot by the police without cause. It IS outrageous that people would be beaten and arrested for protesting that fact. But a lot of people aren't protesting, they're rioting. The comment that got me involved in this discussion (about "some hateful shit of a girl getting pepper sprayed") sums up my position neatly. I watched the video, the "hateful shit of a girl" says she's out there to make a statement, just like the protesters are, and she gives credit to the ones doing so peacefully... whereupon she is pepper sprayed by one of your nazi fighters who is on the side of the angels. Forgive me if I don't see them the same way.
As for the KKK, they're hateful shits and the world would be better off without them. That doesn't mean they don't have rights. Our principle of free speech is supposed to be based on the notion that "I disagree with what you have to say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." Instead, we have people screaming that their safe spaces just can't stand up to words, but don't seem to mind beating people using those words. Again, who is the threat here? Because despite all the claims of Naziism (and I do agree that Trump could EASILY go in that direction) the only people I see being violent here are the ones that seem to be on your side of the divide.
A "message" that we should go back to racial and gender discrimination is not a message I'm interested in, thanks.
Again, you keep calling me a misogynist racist and you don't know anything at all other than "[I] didn't vote for HIllary Clinton and object to repeatedly being called a misogynist racist to the point that I reject your entire agenda."
Since you appear to either be a troll (I'll assume not) or simply want me to virtue signal, here you go: I think that judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of the skin is a pretty good dream, and we should all buy into that. I think the idea that women should be chained in the kitchen is laughable. I support gay marriage and gays in the military (and speaking of the military, I think that women being eligible for all combat roles is a long overdue change).
Put simply: I believe that PEOPLE should have every opportunity to do whatever it is that they want to do, regardless of sex, race, or creed, and everyone else should stay the fuck out of their lives rather than trying to tell them how to live them.
I DO have a problem with "safe spaces" trumping (no pun intended) free speech. I DO have a problem with throwing people out of school simply based on accusations and without any kind of due process. I DO have a problem with an executive branch ruling by fiat ("Dear Colleague") to enable the above. I DO have a problem when people riot because they think someone should not be allowed to speak (at Berkeley of all places!) I DO have a problem that when I say "all lives matter" I'm presumed to believe that black lives (or even blue lives) do not.
I'm assuming your next response will be to call me a racist again (I expect you'll key in on the last thing I said there). If so, don't bother. I won't be responding to you again. If not, hey, maybe you're one of the few rational people left in the world, and the two of us can have a nice conversation.
You are so concerned about some hateful shit of a girl getting pepper sprayed... where were you when peaceful protesters on college campuses were getting hosed down with pepper spray by an agent of the state for a simple sit in?
Some of us are appalled by both events. That's the problem here, and what people on "the left" keep missing: there are plenty of us out here who aren't racists, who aren't misogynist, who think Trump is a disaster-in-waiting, but who are frankly sick and tired of the political climate where we're called misogynist racists because we simply disagree with your "progressive" politics.
You lost the election because of people like us. Instead of taking the lesson to heart, you've doubled down on it.
I said the "administrative class" and I meant it. Yes, the cost of everything you've named has gone down shockingly as a result of automation. However, those costs have been replaced by even more expensive things. Payroll clerks have been replaced by things like "Title IX administrators" and not on a one for one basis--there are MORE of these people than there were payroll clerks.
By contrast, a major factor driving increasing costs is the constant expansion of university administration. According to the Department of Education data, administrative positions at colleges and universities grew by 60 percent between 1993 and 2009, which Bloomberg reported was 10 times the rate of growth of tenured faculty positions.
Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase.
So in the period where we've seen massive improvements in administrative automation (as you yourself note) we've decreased the ratio of professions to admin bodies from around 3:1 to 1:1. Is it any wonder that educational costs are out of control?
I ambiguously stated something as a result of not paying enough attention to what I copy/pasted. If that's not accepting that the failing was mine, the problem is with you, and not me. I certainly don't owe some random person on the internet an apology for my poor word choice.
Oh, and by the way: neither progressive nor a lefty, nor do I support Sanders (I thought I made it clear that I wasn't a fan of his politics). Since you're being so damned pedantic, I figured you'd be on my side of this particular argument (suggesting that Sanders is jetting away to his "various mansions" is absurd on its face, and that's the ONLY thing I took issue with). Again, if you've got a problem here, try taking a look in the mirror.
I missed that Musk's name was in the list (I was referring in my statement to the three names in parenthesis, and the fact that I had included him did not register). I will, of course, report to the nearest suicide booth immediately to rectify my grievous error.
As I said, I'm not familiar with the GA terminal at LAX, but your statement that "commercial airports will demand their GA terminal have standard security screenings" is untrue. Maybe LAX does indeed do this (I have no knowledge) but you're simply wrong about the general case.
Here's an example. I've been in several of their FBOs. Really nice people, really nice facilities, all at "real" airports (one of them is at RDU, which is a decent sized airport any way you slice it, and also has an entire regiment of attack helicopters based there, which are probably a bit more sensitive from a security standpoint than some CRJ). Please click the link, they've got nice slide shows and/or movies of all of their locations. You can feel free to point out the baggage xray machines, backscatter scanners, and metal detectors if you find any (hint: there aren't any to find).
And yes, they have standard security as well, but since fewer people use the terminal, there's no lineup and they usually will be able to go from the car to the jet in about 5 minutes.
Not familiar with the GA terminal at LAX, but I'd be stunned if they had "standard security" as most have what you would call "no security." I remember one FBO that had a keypad lock on the gate to the barbed wire topped chain link fence, and a sign above the keypad that had the code neatly engraved upon it (and yes, this is post 9/11--that's why the fence had barbed wire and a lock).
The simple truth is that the feds cannot and do not dictate what you bring on board on your own personal airplane. I once wore a glock on my belt while piloting a C172 just for the sheer novelty of doing so, and did not break any laws by so doing.
Slashdot Mirror
And Citizens United is now locked in for the next generation
It should be locked in forever The idea that people do not have the same rights when acting in concert as they do when acting alone is abhorrent, and that's exactly what you're saying when you talk about stifling "corporate speech."
From that point of view, the New York Times should not enjoy the freedom of the press. It's nonsensical.
Yes, there are absolutely problems with money in politics. Stifling speech doesn't fix those.
By comparison, there is no amount of alcohol that has been proven to be of benefit, even with moderation. It is quite clearly, a poison.
Red wine has been shown to have positive effects on your heart health.
You can't get a B on a final to bump your grade from a B to an A. But I appreciate the store none the less.
You realize that different parts of the syllabus are often weighted differently, right?
Handguns are mostly worthless as a means of hunting either for food or sport. The simple fact is that handguns are made to kill.
Some thoughts on the above:
1. Apparently "hunting" is not "killing" in your lexicon?
2. Some handguns (though none I can think of made by Glock) are indeed used for hunting. This is what cartridges like .500S&W and .454Casull are for. I have friends who take deer or boar with them.
3. There are other shooting sports beside hunting. Glocks appear quite frequently in some of them.
4. Some handguns are made specifically for the purpose of punching holes in paper or knocking over steel plates, rather than for killing things. While they're capable of the latter, it would be akin to using a screwdriver as a hammer.
Just saying.
A good example of how this could be done is the evolution of the Google home page. Without Googling for screenshots, who can actually tell the difference between the Google home page now and then?
I don't need to view screenshots.. I just have to look at page rendering times and view the page source. Google's homepage used to be lightweight and simple, and now it's a bloated mess of javascript.
At least their wildcard bullshit points at localhost, which is better than some ad server, or some malware hosting site (but I repeat myself). It would be worse.
Already posted in this thread, but worth repeating given the above:
correcthorsebatterystaple
Or look at California. If you put a flash suppressor on your gun, it's now an assault weapon because it is 10 times more deadly.
Reducto ad absurdum. The gun isn't more deadly because of the flash suppressor. Adding a flash suppressor is useful only to people who want to kill and get away without being caught. This has an obvious legit military use, but no legitimate purposes for civilians. That's why it's classified an assault weapon, because only the military has a legitimate reason to use it.
A flash suppressor is designed to reduce the muzzle flash experienced by the shooter, not to make the muzzle flash less observable. Thus, your argument fails.
That was my thought as well... EA Access is a hell of a deal ($60 a year, and just about every EA game seems to go into it eventually). For the cost of one game a year, you're getting EA's entire catalog about six months after release.
Teaching critical thinking in school can't stand up to the power of indoctrination by Mom, Dad, and God at home. Religious parents actively work to ensure that their children see them (and the church) as the only authoritative source of truth.
Way to paint with a broad brush. Catholic schools are full of the children of religious parents, and the instructors are usually priests and nuns. The nuns will kick your damned ass if you're intellectually lazy. Whenever I reflect on my education, I always thank Sister Catherine Joseph, one of my 6th grade teachers. She was a mean woman, and I hated her guts, but she was one of the best teachers I've ever known. She taught two subjects: Science and Religion, and she taught both of them rigorously, and well.
Never underestimate someone who believes they have been commanded by god to turn your child into a thinking, reasoning, well educated member of society.
They weren't a government.
[citation needed]
Now you're just splitting hairs. There's no virtue in being an asshole just for the sake of being an asshole.
While I agree with you that the guy you're responding to is just splitting hairs, you picked a particularly bad example for your retort (hint: "Continental Congress.")
You understood my intent perfectly. "The left" is how they are labelled, but most people outside of the US do not think the US has a left wing. It was a convenient label (which is generally accepted in political debate in the US, regardless of whether or not it is accurate) and not a political statement, so I quoted it to indicate such.
If you voted for someone who you thought was a walking disaster you are a complete idiot and I really don't care what you think.
As noted elsewhere in this thread, I did not vote for the walking disaster.
This isn't about the last election, this isn't about Hillary, this is about Nazis... This is about blatant out right racist assholes who should not be given the insane amount of protection that they are given. The KKK can parade around "openly" exposing death to tons of American citizens, people like you and me and they are protected for it but if a few black people get together to say "hey, how about you stop shooting us in record numbers" and they get beaten and arrested. That shit is fucked up... that is as anit-American as it gets.
These aren't people who are simply fiscally conservative, they are hate mongers, they would have huge swaths of Americans eliminated simply for the color of their skin, and if you support them, if you stand with the hate mongers, then you are just as bad as they are.
I do thank you for the civility of saying "if" a lot in your post. Unlike the other guy who keeps calling me a racist, at least you have the courtesy to assume it's possible that I might not be one.
We agree entirely about the right to protest. It IS outrageous that people are being shot by the police without cause. It IS outrageous that people would be beaten and arrested for protesting that fact. But a lot of people aren't protesting, they're rioting. The comment that got me involved in this discussion (about "some hateful shit of a girl getting pepper sprayed") sums up my position neatly. I watched the video, the "hateful shit of a girl" says she's out there to make a statement, just like the protesters are, and she gives credit to the ones doing so peacefully... whereupon she is pepper sprayed by one of your nazi fighters who is on the side of the angels. Forgive me if I don't see them the same way.
As for the KKK, they're hateful shits and the world would be better off without them. That doesn't mean they don't have rights. Our principle of free speech is supposed to be based on the notion that "I disagree with what you have to say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." Instead, we have people screaming that their safe spaces just can't stand up to words, but don't seem to mind beating people using those words. Again, who is the threat here? Because despite all the claims of Naziism (and I do agree that Trump could EASILY go in that direction) the only people I see being violent here are the ones that seem to be on your side of the divide.
A "message" that we should go back to racial and gender discrimination is not a message I'm interested in, thanks.
Again, you keep calling me a misogynist racist and you don't know anything at all other than "[I] didn't vote for HIllary Clinton and object to repeatedly being called a misogynist racist to the point that I reject your entire agenda."
Since you appear to either be a troll (I'll assume not) or simply want me to virtue signal, here you go: I think that judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of the skin is a pretty good dream, and we should all buy into that. I think the idea that women should be chained in the kitchen is laughable. I support gay marriage and gays in the military (and speaking of the military, I think that women being eligible for all combat roles is a long overdue change).
Put simply: I believe that PEOPLE should have every opportunity to do whatever it is that they want to do, regardless of sex, race, or creed, and everyone else should stay the fuck out of their lives rather than trying to tell them how to live them.
I DO have a problem with "safe spaces" trumping (no pun intended) free speech. I DO have a problem with throwing people out of school simply based on accusations and without any kind of due process. I DO have a problem with an executive branch ruling by fiat ("Dear Colleague") to enable the above. I DO have a problem when people riot because they think someone should not be allowed to speak (at Berkeley of all places!) I DO have a problem that when I say "all lives matter" I'm presumed to believe that black lives (or even blue lives) do not.
I'm assuming your next response will be to call me a racist again (I expect you'll key in on the last thing I said there). If so, don't bother. I won't be responding to you again. If not, hey, maybe you're one of the few rational people left in the world, and the two of us can have a nice conversation.
You voted for a racist.
I did? That's news to me. I haven't voted for a two-party presidential candidate in over 15 years.
You are a racist, regardless of the rest of your politics.
Like I said: instead of listening to the message, you're doubling down.
You are so concerned about some hateful shit of a girl getting pepper sprayed... where were you when peaceful protesters on college campuses were getting hosed down with pepper spray by an agent of the state for a simple sit in?
Some of us are appalled by both events. That's the problem here, and what people on "the left" keep missing: there are plenty of us out here who aren't racists, who aren't misogynist, who think Trump is a disaster-in-waiting, but who are frankly sick and tired of the political climate where we're called misogynist racists because we simply disagree with your "progressive" politics.
You lost the election because of people like us. Instead of taking the lesson to heart, you've doubled down on it.
I said the "administrative class" and I meant it. Yes, the cost of everything you've named has gone down shockingly as a result of automation. However, those costs have been replaced by even more expensive things. Payroll clerks have been replaced by things like "Title IX administrators" and not on a one for one basis--there are MORE of these people than there were payroll clerks.
NY Times Op-Ed piece on the subject contains this gem:
By contrast, a major factor driving increasing costs is the constant expansion of university administration. According to the Department of Education data, administrative positions at colleges and universities grew by 60 percent between 1993 and 2009, which Bloomberg reported was 10 times the rate of growth of tenured faculty positions.
Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase.
So in the period where we've seen massive improvements in administrative automation (as you yourself note) we've decreased the ratio of professions to admin bodies from around 3:1 to 1:1. Is it any wonder that educational costs are out of control?
I ambiguously stated something as a result of not paying enough attention to what I copy/pasted. If that's not accepting that the failing was mine, the problem is with you, and not me. I certainly don't owe some random person on the internet an apology for my poor word choice.
Oh, and by the way: neither progressive nor a lefty, nor do I support Sanders (I thought I made it clear that I wasn't a fan of his politics). Since you're being so damned pedantic, I figured you'd be on my side of this particular argument (suggesting that Sanders is jetting away to his "various mansions" is absurd on its face, and that's the ONLY thing I took issue with). Again, if you've got a problem here, try taking a look in the mirror.
I missed that Musk's name was in the list (I was referring in my statement to the three names in parenthesis, and the fact that I had included him did not register). I will, of course, report to the nearest suicide booth immediately to rectify my grievous error.
As I said, I violated no laws in the doing.
As I said, I'm not familiar with the GA terminal at LAX, but your statement that "commercial airports will demand their GA terminal have standard security screenings" is untrue. Maybe LAX does indeed do this (I have no knowledge) but you're simply wrong about the general case.
Here's an example. I've been in several of their FBOs. Really nice people, really nice facilities, all at "real" airports (one of them is at RDU, which is a decent sized airport any way you slice it, and also has an entire regiment of attack helicopters based there, which are probably a bit more sensitive from a security standpoint than some CRJ). Please click the link, they've got nice slide shows and/or movies of all of their locations. You can feel free to point out the baggage xray machines, backscatter scanners, and metal detectors if you find any (hint: there aren't any to find).
I was referring to Sanders.
I was talking about Sanders, not the guy that builds spaceships as a hobby.
And yes, they have standard security as well, but since fewer people use the terminal, there's no lineup and they usually will be able to go from the car to the jet in about 5 minutes.
Not familiar with the GA terminal at LAX, but I'd be stunned if they had "standard security" as most have what you would call "no security." I remember one FBO that had a keypad lock on the gate to the barbed wire topped chain link fence, and a sign above the keypad that had the code neatly engraved upon it (and yes, this is post 9/11--that's why the fence had barbed wire and a lock).
The simple truth is that the feds cannot and do not dictate what you bring on board on your own personal airplane. I once wore a glock on my belt while piloting a C172 just for the sheer novelty of doing so, and did not break any laws by so doing.