One of those two will be president. You can throw up your hands and say something idiotic like "They're both so terrible I can't vote for either," but that's your inner two year old talking. You don't have much clout as an individual, but you can at least use the little you have.
Did you actually have a point, or an argument, or a logical argument besides "I don't like Trump"? Budding Cicero, you are.
On the one hand we have Hillary trading uranium rights for CGI donations, and on the other we have... well. you don't like Trump. Do you have a college degree? Ask for your money back.
The "change" you're talking about is the lack of enforcement of immigration laws. The point is that change should never have happened.
The same people on slashdot pooh-poohing Trump for wanting to enforce immigration laws would have a seizure if companies were allowed unrestricted use of H-1B visas. I wonder how you would "adapt" to your new job as a Walmart greeter in that eventuality.
And BTW, you of all people, have no business accusing others of stupidity.
Do you know what any of those fifty cent words mean? Yes, companies build factories where the labor supply is available. But letting people from other countries come into the country illegally is not part of capitalism, unless you're talking about the "crony" variety. I understand why companies want the government to ignore duly constituted laws regarding immigration, but I don't understand why anybody cares what they want.
It may be hard for Democrats to understand, but this business of having corporate donors pay you a million dollars for a speech so you take care of them once you're in office? That's not the way it's supposed to work.
Perhaps Trump will actually use the security team that comes with the job instead of setting up his own parallel system in an effort to monetize the job. Just spitballing here.
So you'd like to live in a world where people with degrees and marketable skills make a lot of money and everyone else makes barely enough to survive? Because fuck 'em?
But I'd be hesitant to claim that they're even the majority of Trump supporters. From statistics I've seen, the biggest demographic is white males with lower levels of education and fall in pretty bad economic situations.
Oh, you mean the people who've paid the biggest price for open borders policies are the most motivated to do something about it? Do tell.
Trump is perfectly fine with Mexican immigration. Legal Mexican immigration. He wants a wall (along with most Americans) to keep people from coming into the country illegally.
"Trump and his advocates" haven't destroyed anybody's trust. The fact that you really, really don't want him to be president and don't want anything to do with his supporters is an emotional problem on your part. It has nothing to do with business.
At this point Russia is relying on its nuclear arsenal to maintain its independence, the same way Pakistan and North Korea do. It would have no hope in a conventional war against the US, particularly if the other NATO countries were involved.
SpaceX was certainly on track to deliver people to the ISS far more cheaply than Soyuz. Whether or not that remains the case will depend somewhat on the latest failure.
Because that's the most cost efficient way to do it. When fossil fuels get more expensive food will get more expensive, but don't buy into the idea we're going to see mass starvation. Not at current population levels.
And fossil fuels will not be "running out" in our lifetime or anyone else's, though they will become too expensive to use for noncritical transportation.
.. because it didn't include activities such as consuming legumes [which require cooking to break-down toxic phytins/lectins].
Only if you're using your own private definition of "hunting and gathering". Are you trying to say people in hunter-gatherer societies didn't have fire, or that they didn't cook at all? When it comes to edible plants the only qualification is they didn't engage in agriculture.
As soon as we set up an antenna my parents dropped cable like a hot rock. We got them a DVR and my dad, who scoffed at television for decades because he couldn't find anything worth watching, told me he can always find something worth watching now, and has to consciously limit his TV time.
People seem to think if you get ten channels for $10/month you should be able to get the one you want for $1. But it doesn't work that way. It's more likely you'll get the one channel for $10.
Slashdot Mirror
One of those two will be president. You can throw up your hands and say something idiotic like "They're both so terrible I can't vote for either," but that's your inner two year old talking. You don't have much clout as an individual, but you can at least use the little you have.
Did you actually have a point, or an argument, or a logical argument besides "I don't like Trump"? Budding Cicero, you are.
On the one hand we have Hillary trading uranium rights for CGI donations, and on the other we have... well. you don't like Trump. Do you have a college degree? Ask for your money back.
The "change" you're talking about is the lack of enforcement of immigration laws. The point is that change should never have happened.
The same people on slashdot pooh-poohing Trump for wanting to enforce immigration laws would have a seizure if companies were allowed unrestricted use of H-1B visas. I wonder how you would "adapt" to your new job as a Walmart greeter in that eventuality.
And BTW, you of all people, have no business accusing others of stupidity.
Do you know what any of those fifty cent words mean? Yes, companies build factories where the labor supply is available. But letting people from other countries come into the country illegally is not part of capitalism, unless you're talking about the "crony" variety. I understand why companies want the government to ignore duly constituted laws regarding immigration, but I don't understand why anybody cares what they want.
It may be hard for Democrats to understand, but this business of having corporate donors pay you a million dollars for a speech so you take care of them once you're in office? That's not the way it's supposed to work.
Perhaps Trump will actually use the security team that comes with the job instead of setting up his own parallel system in an effort to monetize the job. Just spitballing here.
No, that isn't capitalism at all. That's some kind of goofy internationalism. There's nothing about capitalism that says we need to have open borders.
So you'd like to live in a world where people with degrees and marketable skills make a lot of money and everyone else makes barely enough to survive? Because fuck 'em?
Sure, sure. We can all get PhDs and the toilets will clean themselves.
For once, think a little.
Oh, you mean the people who've paid the biggest price for open borders policies are the most motivated to do something about it? Do tell.
Trump is perfectly fine with Mexican immigration. Legal Mexican immigration. He wants a wall (along with most Americans) to keep people from coming into the country illegally.
"Trump and his advocates" haven't destroyed anybody's trust. The fact that you really, really don't want him to be president and don't want anything to do with his supporters is an emotional problem on your part. It has nothing to do with business.
At this point Russia is relying on its nuclear arsenal to maintain its independence, the same way Pakistan and North Korea do. It would have no hope in a conventional war against the US, particularly if the other NATO countries were involved.
That's kind of a joke. Russia is weaker than it's ever been in relation to the US.
SpaceX was certainly on track to deliver people to the ISS far more cheaply than Soyuz. Whether or not that remains the case will depend somewhat on the latest failure.
To Congress the space program is just another way of shoveling cash to critical districts. Buying from China would defeat the purpose.
Because that's the most cost efficient way to do it. When fossil fuels get more expensive food will get more expensive, but don't buy into the idea we're going to see mass starvation. Not at current population levels.
And fossil fuels will not be "running out" in our lifetime or anyone else's, though they will become too expensive to use for noncritical transportation.
Only if you're using your own private definition of "hunting and gathering". Are you trying to say people in hunter-gatherer societies didn't have fire, or that they didn't cook at all? When it comes to edible plants the only qualification is they didn't engage in agriculture.
Wait until some asshole injects politics into a story about plants... oh, nevermind.
I'm with you. At this point the patent system is an impediment to technical progress rather than an aid.
That was always the criticism of the Baby Boomers. That they didn't have the same work ethic as their parents.
On the other hand, we wouldn't have Bob & Doug without CanCon.
As soon as we set up an antenna my parents dropped cable like a hot rock. We got them a DVR and my dad, who scoffed at television for decades because he couldn't find anything worth watching, told me he can always find something worth watching now, and has to consciously limit his TV time.
The shopping channels pay the cable company, at least in my area. That's why getting internet without TV costs $10 more.
People seem to think if you get ten channels for $10/month you should be able to get the one you want for $1. But it doesn't work that way. It's more likely you'll get the one channel for $10.
No, it's nowhere near flight ready. The chipping problem isn't caused by bad QC; it's caused by stresses on the rods.
There's a reason nobody is seriously contemplating use of this technology.