No - not voting to make things measurably worse because one believed comforting lies makes one intelligent. And it's not a football game - we all lost.
But that's not what will happen. That's the problem. They were told if they voted to leave the EU that Britain would be "sovereign". It turns out that Britain will still be beholden to EU laws (unless it wants to do no trade with the EU), and will still have to abide by the ECHR. So yes - voting to leave the EU because one thinks it will restore "sovereignty" when it does nothing of the sort (but hurts the economy and raises the price of goods) does indeed make one a moron.
True, the UK can get its own trade agreement with the EU, but if it is going to be even slightly comparable to the one it has now (full, unhindered market access), it will have to cede control of its borders to the EU when it comes to EU nationals immigrating (as this will definitely be a condition of a favourable deal - see other non-EU countries in Europe who trade under agreement with the EU). Non-EU immigration has always been under the control of the UK, and Brexit changes nothing in this regard. Trade deals take years to sort out, and in the mean-time the uncertainty will affect the British economy noticeably.
Multiculturalism is what made London great, what saved it after WWII, and what's driven it forward since then. Britain without multiculturalism is boring as fuck.
Open borders are not a disaster, except in the media. All statistics show they have a massive net benefit to all countries involved.
The people were not happy with the EU as represented in the mainstream media, where it was often used as a scapegoat for anything and everything in order to increase sales, leading to a demonstrably-skewed understanding of the EU, on which no one should be basing policy. And I doubt very much that people within the EU have a problem with the EU's economy, if they actually knew what it was.
Of course the establishment is trying to undermine him - he's a joke. And no you can't ask for evidence to be thrown out because it was discovered by a bad guy, but you can ask for evidence to be thrown out if it was collected via illegal means. Stop misrepresenting reality.
You're the only one talking about an evacuated tube. You seem to be arguing against some idea you have in your head, and not against what everyone else is discussing. Perplexing.
I liked how you ignored his points, made more claims covered in the documentation, and then ignored when they pointed out your claims have already been addressed in the documentation. You really showed him! You're the coolest!
No, no trouble. They'll just have their nonsense called out. By your weird logic drowning is impossible as we need water to live. You don't seem to understand some rather basic science.
So you posted a link to one guy complaining something bad *could* happen. And the guy has worked at insurance companies his whole career. Brilliant. You sure showed him!
You didn't read the article, then. Or even the summary. This is a pilot scheme, with the participants selected from the unemployed. Obviously the Finnish are not as stupid as you seem to think they are, and will be rolling this out to the employed should it be a success.
What wonderful nonsense. Next time at least try to make a point when you try to be rude. You just whipped up a straw man or two and pathetically tried to cut them down, failing massively.
There you go with the "we" stuff again, talking for everyone like you own them or have anything to do with their decisions. It reeks of an illogical mind. Speak for yourself.
Stop saying "we". You didn't invent either. The computer wasn't even an American invention (and has nothing to do with paper), so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make to assuage your insecurity.
When those other countries continually engage in a nationalism-fuelled wankfest over how democratic they see themselves, you'll have a point. Until then the fetishistic adoration of democracy in the US compared to the ridiculous results of democracy in the US tell a laughably sad story.
Nope. Totalitarianism's only goal is giving all power to the government. That's it. Nothing about information. You can't just make up definitions for words because it suits your argument. Facebook has been about as open as you can expect with regards to releasing information about government agencies asking them for information. They've fought back a massive amount. You comparing this private company with people being abducted by secret police, or government spying is pathetic. You can do better, surely.
Your incessant complaining about "Space Nutters" is making you a Space Nutter Nutter. Seriously. You are lumping everyone together and the casting your judgement upon them, based solely on your experience of a few. That is incredibly illogical.
It's not a far stretch at all - they only have to be as good as humans. If people can navigate this stuff, then autonomous cars can. Their improved feedback from the wheels would mean they can detect dangerous driving conditions better than humans. They don't have to be perfect, and they will improve all the time. You have to show why there is some impenetrable barrier for these cars which humans can comfortably sail through. Until you can do that, there is no reason to think the cars won't be at least as good as us.
If a person can deal with it, a computer with better processing and hardware will also be able to. How do you figure out where the lanes are? Why do you assume it's impossible for code to do that too?
They are not facts. They are based on observations. The only fanatic or crackpot in this thread is you - you are so hell bent on the sanctity of scientific laws (which you seem to think are immutable for some reason, even though by their very definition are not) that you can't entertain the possibility of a new discovery. This probably isn't a new discovery, but were one to come along (as the scientific method expects), you would dismiss it out of hand, evidence be damned. You are not thinking or acting like a scientist, but an extremist.
Proof is for mathematics and liquor. There is no proof in science, just evidence. You are attempting to pick and choose what evidence you will accept based on how you think it will affect evidence you've already accepted as being true. Your position is the antithesis of science.
Every time Uber is mentioned it is called a ride sharing service, when it is demonstrably nothing of the sort. Ride sharing has existed for decades, and is entirely different to being a taxi service.
You keep posting these anecdotes as if they have any bearing on the subject what-so-ever, which they clearly don't. In Germany if your dentist screws you over for whatever reason, you can talk to your insurance company or talk to the state. The dentist will get shafted, and you'll get your treatment for free. Now my anecdote has cancelled yours out, you don't have to keep trying to ram it in to the discussion whenever you feel your argument is losing its teeth, and instead you can focus on constructing a real argument based on demonstrable fact.
Slashdot Mirror
The incredibly arbitrary nature of your claim should be some indication that it is factually incorrect.
No - not voting to make things measurably worse because one believed comforting lies makes one intelligent. And it's not a football game - we all lost.
But that's not what will happen. That's the problem. They were told if they voted to leave the EU that Britain would be "sovereign". It turns out that Britain will still be beholden to EU laws (unless it wants to do no trade with the EU), and will still have to abide by the ECHR. So yes - voting to leave the EU because one thinks it will restore "sovereignty" when it does nothing of the sort (but hurts the economy and raises the price of goods) does indeed make one a moron.
OK, let me help you.
True, the UK can get its own trade agreement with the EU, but if it is going to be even slightly comparable to the one it has now (full, unhindered market access), it will have to cede control of its borders to the EU when it comes to EU nationals immigrating (as this will definitely be a condition of a favourable deal - see other non-EU countries in Europe who trade under agreement with the EU). Non-EU immigration has always been under the control of the UK, and Brexit changes nothing in this regard. Trade deals take years to sort out, and in the mean-time the uncertainty will affect the British economy noticeably.
Multiculturalism is what made London great, what saved it after WWII, and what's driven it forward since then. Britain without multiculturalism is boring as fuck.
Open borders are not a disaster, except in the media. All statistics show they have a massive net benefit to all countries involved.
The people were not happy with the EU as represented in the mainstream media, where it was often used as a scapegoat for anything and everything in order to increase sales, leading to a demonstrably-skewed understanding of the EU, on which no one should be basing policy. And I doubt very much that people within the EU have a problem with the EU's economy, if they actually knew what it was.
Of course the establishment is trying to undermine him - he's a joke. And no you can't ask for evidence to be thrown out because it was discovered by a bad guy, but you can ask for evidence to be thrown out if it was collected via illegal means. Stop misrepresenting reality.
Way to shift your goalposts. Proud of yourself for that one?
You're the only one talking about an evacuated tube. You seem to be arguing against some idea you have in your head, and not against what everyone else is discussing. Perplexing.
I liked how you ignored his points, made more claims covered in the documentation, and then ignored when they pointed out your claims have already been addressed in the documentation. You really showed him! You're the coolest!
No, no trouble. They'll just have their nonsense called out. By your weird logic drowning is impossible as we need water to live. You don't seem to understand some rather basic science.
So you posted a link to one guy complaining something bad *could* happen. And the guy has worked at insurance companies his whole career. Brilliant. You sure showed him!
You didn't read the article, then. Or even the summary. This is a pilot scheme, with the participants selected from the unemployed. Obviously the Finnish are not as stupid as you seem to think they are, and will be rolling this out to the employed should it be a success.
What wonderful nonsense. Next time at least try to make a point when you try to be rude. You just whipped up a straw man or two and pathetically tried to cut them down, failing massively.
There you go with the "we" stuff again, talking for everyone like you own them or have anything to do with their decisions. It reeks of an illogical mind. Speak for yourself.
Stop saying "we". You didn't invent either. The computer wasn't even an American invention (and has nothing to do with paper), so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make to assuage your insecurity.
When those other countries continually engage in a nationalism-fuelled wankfest over how democratic they see themselves, you'll have a point. Until then the fetishistic adoration of democracy in the US compared to the ridiculous results of democracy in the US tell a laughably sad story.
Nope. Totalitarianism's only goal is giving all power to the government. That's it. Nothing about information. You can't just make up definitions for words because it suits your argument. Facebook has been about as open as you can expect with regards to releasing information about government agencies asking them for information. They've fought back a massive amount. You comparing this private company with people being abducted by secret police, or government spying is pathetic. You can do better, surely.
Your incessant complaining about "Space Nutters" is making you a Space Nutter Nutter. Seriously. You are lumping everyone together and the casting your judgement upon them, based solely on your experience of a few. That is incredibly illogical.
It's not a far stretch at all - they only have to be as good as humans. If people can navigate this stuff, then autonomous cars can. Their improved feedback from the wheels would mean they can detect dangerous driving conditions better than humans. They don't have to be perfect, and they will improve all the time. You have to show why there is some impenetrable barrier for these cars which humans can comfortably sail through. Until you can do that, there is no reason to think the cars won't be at least as good as us.
If a person can deal with it, a computer with better processing and hardware will also be able to. How do you figure out where the lanes are? Why do you assume it's impossible for code to do that too?
They are not facts. They are based on observations. The only fanatic or crackpot in this thread is you - you are so hell bent on the sanctity of scientific laws (which you seem to think are immutable for some reason, even though by their very definition are not) that you can't entertain the possibility of a new discovery. This probably isn't a new discovery, but were one to come along (as the scientific method expects), you would dismiss it out of hand, evidence be damned. You are not thinking or acting like a scientist, but an extremist.
Proof is for mathematics and liquor. There is no proof in science, just evidence. You are attempting to pick and choose what evidence you will accept based on how you think it will affect evidence you've already accepted as being true. Your position is the antithesis of science.
Every time Uber is mentioned it is called a ride sharing service, when it is demonstrably nothing of the sort. Ride sharing has existed for decades, and is entirely different to being a taxi service.
I think I love you.
You keep posting these anecdotes as if they have any bearing on the subject what-so-ever, which they clearly don't. In Germany if your dentist screws you over for whatever reason, you can talk to your insurance company or talk to the state. The dentist will get shafted, and you'll get your treatment for free. Now my anecdote has cancelled yours out, you don't have to keep trying to ram it in to the discussion whenever you feel your argument is losing its teeth, and instead you can focus on constructing a real argument based on demonstrable fact.