I gave the examples regarding public school, not private school. Public schools must follow Government laws and mandates, which is quite different from Private schools who don't have to follow the same rules.. just pass the same tests. I know because from K-7 grades my kid was in private school. There was no private high school close enough to where we lived for him to finish in private school so we had to switch to public. Public schools are extremely hostile toward men, and the bureaucracy ensures that it is. Public school advancement requires following the "program" and ratting out anyone doing anything differently. Making people look bad so that you look good, and it's way too easy to make a guy look bad.
Simple, every male teacher is a punching bag with a huge target on them. You smiled at the girl when she turned in her paper, you are a pedophile man! Girl hugs the male teacher, he goes to jail. Female teacher fucks a student, claims "alcohol was the problem" and walks away. Wholly fuck, you would not be able to pay me enough to teach with the current climate. No, I quit mentoring too for similar reasons! The only way a guy can be safe in a school is to have a woman with him 100% of the time, and he's still fucked if she decides he's no longer needed.
Contrary to you pulling out the race card, there is an underlying problem with TFA's points. Primarily, that a Country can only be successful when taking care of itself FIRST. I realize that this takes some deep thought to comprehend, you are not going to get it if you continue to look at things as you proposed as a racial issue. It's not a racial issue, it's an economic issue.
Look long and hard at the US, and what happens when a country dumps out all of it's local income generation for "cheaper products". We are still told that this is the way it should be, but it's bullshit. That economic model only benefits the top.01% who already has way more wealth than they could ever spend. For the rest of society, we are shafted by the deal. Read Milton Friedman, perhaps you will understand.. if you can get over your simple belief that it's only bias that stops importing workers at any rate. Carol Quigley is another great read to understand how this is economic, not racial. Racial issues are what rich people use to keep us bickering with each other, arguing over who has the larger pile of sand.... while they polish their gold. (not all of it obviously, there are pure bigots but those people are easy to deal with in the grand scheme of things)
Today's economic model does not match what gave us tremendous growth and achievements. Henry Fords model was pure capitalism. Pay the worker well, they will buy the products. Not just the cars, but the furniture so that the furniture makers can afford cars too, and the guys in the restaurant, etc... Middle class income _IS_ the mobile income in society. Middle class people don't hoard, they spend what they make. When you take away the middle class income, the economy and growth all stagnates. This is the problem with the last 40 years of economic policy, the middle class has vanished and the top.01% have grown exponentially in wealth. That is factual, you can research the statistics. The US today is ranked 4th in the world for economic disparity (yes, we are worse than nearly every other country in the world). We are at the same level today as we were in 1928, but it looks better since we are printing out more and more fiat money as loans.
Importing workers does not make better programmers. Innovation and education makes better programmers, interest in societies development makes better programmers, and more importantly opportunity makes better programmers. If we don't have a positive economic outlook (which I will argue most people 30 and under have) then it does not matter who you bring in. Society needs to change, and the money has to get out of a few select hands and back into average people's hands. That is how we will see improvement, not by simply importing a few people at reduced wages further depressing wages for US workers.
Personally, I don't have anything against "globalization" if it's done where everyone prospers. That has not been happening with any of the Globalization that has occurred. The majority has suffered under the current policies, so I'm against the current economic policies that continue to pool wealth into few hands.
Is raise awareness and keep things in the independent press. Nobody from the Government has gone to jail for any of these abuses, and this should infuriate people. Our TV based media is not harping on this, they harp on everything but holding the Government accountable for their actions. If you really want to make change you have to get people awake to the severity of the problems, normal media channels work for the same team as our Government.
Why do you think that cops were more accountable 30 or 40 years ago?
Before an answer, I will say that a large part of that trust came from being ignorant to the way the world actually works. I was young, delusional, and believed that authorities would never lie. Outside of Nixon and Kissinger of course. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say, and looking back I don't believe they were as accountable as I wanted to believe.. but there are several differences between today and then in attitude and training of law enforcement.
Back then, police were not held in a higher regard than the public. Respected, sure.. but a cop's actions were measured by their risk to the public. For example, the commando style raids we see today are a very new phenomenon. 30-40 years ago this would not have happened unless someone's life was in eminent danger. Today we have commandos chucking grenades into houses to serve warrants. We have commando style raids for non-violent crimes like drug dealing. Cops shooting family pets because they claim "I was afraid of the dog". Those things simply did not happen back then. Police were expected to respect the public as much as the public respected them.
There are many other differences in training and actions found to be acceptable then and now. A cop shooting someone today can simply use the excuse "I thought I was in danger", even when it's a kid playing army with his buddies. That would have had an officer suspended without pay 40 years ago, and back then there were many more kids out playing army/cops & robbers, etc.... Toy guns were much more common, hell we brought them to school to play at recess.
Lastly hiring practices are much different then and now. Then, there was more worry about public perception of officers. Cops were expected to outsmart the bad guys, not kick their asses. Today agencies want the ass kickers, bad asses, and bullies. "Gangs" are not something new, so that excuse does not work as the justification.
Accountability is a good thing, and something severely lacking today. We have enough independent footage to know that events that happen should not, but since the footage is from "independent" sources they are all labelled questionable. A source that can be held with fewer questions, such as the body cameras by cops, would add much to a case like Michael Brown. Even if the camera was not facing Michael Brown at the onset of the encounter, audio could have been used to determine who's story was most accurate.
Thirty/Forty years ago I would have always taken the cops word over an encounter. Today, not so much. What you point out is exactly correct. People behave different when they are being watched, which includes "people" in Law enforcement.
Because it's not possible to have both, unless you are just going to be a baby factory and let the State raise the kids. Is that another thing you want? And trust me, I'm a huge advocate for Plato's "The Republic" but that is one area where I completely disagree with Socrates. (if you are confused read the book)
Being a parent is a full time job all on its own. Not everyone can be like the Yahoo CEO and build a nursery next to her office to spend some time with the kid while at work. Most women in fact are not in such a position, and many don't want the stress of having a baby at work anyway. Instead of admonishing or belittling a person for wanting to be a parent, prop them up for being a parent.
Oh I know, I'm a misogynist for claiming that the woman should do these things. If of course you ignore the fact that men don't have the breasts to breast feed, and lack the uterus to carry a baby from conception to birth. After birth, I'm fine either way. I work with a lady who pumps all day and her husband takes care of the baby (and their other 2 children) all day. Nothing wrong with this arrangement in my opinion, and in today's society it's often the fiscally responsible choice.
Stop painting any woman without a career in some_company as a bad thing, and relationships as a bad thing. Parents (yes, that is plural) should both be involved in a kids life, and this happens when we promote the benefits of relationships and promote accountability for actions (such as pregnancy). This trend of 2 people being required to work full time at a company is a very new one, it really started in the 1970s and 80s.
Except as I stated to someone else, the system won't change with the same players in the system. No candidates in the last election, or the one before that, or the one before that, ad nauseam, have changing our system on their agendas. Zero, zip, nada, primarily because their livelihood depends on the current broken system. If it's fixed, they lose their jobs (or have a strong chance of doing so). We could use the same exact arguments to discuss term limits, which have also been discussed by the populace but never voted on favorably by the politicians who rely on this broken system for their paychecks.
I surely agree that the current system is horribly broken. Maintaining the system won't "fix" it, so enough people have to vote to change the system in order to invoke changes./p.
So the US Media and Politicians never switched the blame from the GOP who claimed responsibility for the hack to the DPRK never happened? The shift in blame is all black helicopters and "hookey"? Really now, I think you need a reality check, because this is not a casual link but _WHAT HAPPENED_.
Perhaps you are considering that the CIA did make changes to Sony PR information is also just a casual link, even though the emails prove this. More black helicopters and casual strands right?
Believe everything you are told by our Media, they have never lied before. Same goes for the politicians, and remember Saddam really had mountains of yellow cake and dirty bombs.. GW told you so, and it has to be true.
This is after the fact we are talking about, not what ever fantasy land you pretend to live in. Sony did not have to out their execs, hackers did that for them. The original group that took credit never mentioned either the movie or the DPRK. That was a side show to divert attention away from the content of the emails and put CISPA SOPA back on the political agenda. You are choosing to ignore investigative journalists who do this for a living from The Intercept and Wired. Oh, I know.. according to you Glen Greenwald must just be a 9/11 truther because you say so and correlate anyone that questions Government actions to an easy to play lie card. Pathetic, simply pathetic, reasoning skills you have going on there.
Here is a tidbit, but we can go further. For example Opium production in Afghanistan was prohibited under the Taliban and right before the war Opium production was at record lows. Right after the invasion opium production goes to all time highs and has remained at all time highs ever since. There were plenty of lies regarding nearly every war, it's a question of whether or not there was also enough justification for "bad" to start the war. I don't believe any of our recent wars have such justification, but of course that is my educated opinion.
As to the comment from Halivar, stating that "Sony works for the CIA": That is a goddamn idiotic statement for anyone to make. It does not discount what is obvious and provable collusion between huge corporations and Governments, which we have plenty of _proof_ for in the US. We try to pretty some of it up by labeling it "just lobbying", but in reality it's outright bribery, blackmail, cronyism, and nepotism. The levels of collusion are not just courtesy, it's input to operations in both directions. Whistle blowers from nearly every major "news" outlet have claimed this, and many from Hollywood have made similar claims regarding Hollywood's itinerary and direction for movies. "Oh, they only did that in WW I and WWII" really does not make sense, but this is what people will attempt to claim.
Nowhere do I even imply that this is about money for Sony. This is about demonizing the DPRK, not money. It's about bringing back CISPA/SOPA legislation, and demonizing hackers in general. It's politics, not money driven.
Before you attempt to make a false claim the answer is "N", I'm not a fan of the DPRK Government and don't intend any implication that they are the good guys. Quite the contrary, if everything we are told is true they are a despicable dictatorship. At the same time, lying to topple dictators for a political agenda has not turned out well anywhere else. Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan are easy examples of lies to topple Governments that have been horrific for the populations living in that country. We don't conquer to establish a better Government for them, we topple to destabilize and exploit resources.
Further, we can't topple the DPRK without pissing off China and suffering severe consequences.
It simply demonstrates the sham that we were told a week ago today. There is no threat from the DPRK, just fear mongering typical political spin for an agenda the people are not privy to see. The Intercept has an article hinting at what I'm sure others guessed here.
Wired had the article last week demonstrating how week the link is to the Sony hack and the DPRK.
I normally enjoy Seth Rogan's movies, but in this case I'll wait for the TV edition. I don't need to pay for the propaganda machine willfully.
And we will change our broken system of FPTP gerrymandered electoral college how exactly? Last election there were exactly 0 candidates willing to change the system. Primarily because their livelihood depends on the current broken system. We don't see any traction on things like term limits for the same reason.
Sure, I agree that there is a huge hurdle. We have to jump it to move forward.
Telling people to either not vote, or to only vote D or R will never change the status quo. There is no possible way to get away from the currently broken system claiming "the US is a two party system" (which it is not and has never been) by doing nothing.. or doing the same thing over and over.
Results _require_ action! If you want to change the system you need everyone voting and voting against the status quo. Promoting Einstein's definition of insanity will never make things better. It can't, and this expectation is exactly insane. "Oh, if we only voted for this Democrat or That Republican things would be different". Yet this is what gets repeated over and over.
If you don't like the path the US is on, vote for anything except the status quo! The argument of "those guys are bought and paid for too" may or may not be true, but if they are they surely don't receive the amount of money and pandering that the D and R candidates do.
Intentionally running a MITM attack against your customers aside, there is a huge problem with the legislation to begin with. There is a valid answer, and has been for quite a while, for people that want to keep their kids away from porn without the heavy handed Government regulation.
Cybersitter and NetNanny are not for me, but if I had young kids I may use that type of service if I was worried about their access. These companies get paid to manage content for you, and are _completely_voluntary so don't impose restrictions on everyone. And if those services are not available in the UK, or not good enough in the UK, why not create the company and let the free market do the work? As bad as the US has become, I'm glad I'm not from the UK.
Good job repeating the propaganda citizen, we have reserved an extra slice of cheese for your next compensation package. You did now however follow the main line "Vote Democrat and Republican or you waste your vote" so we will be removing said extra slice of cheese.
I agree with you, but will point out that TFA is discussing something else. Science is not about having a majority understand, or be "interested". This means that real science tends to be ignored. Sometimes real science goes against the grain, and that science is never peer reviewed either. Meaning that the same status quo is maintained even if it's not scientific.
Slashdot's biggest topics are not "Science" but politics. This is an area which is extremely complex and there may not be a definitive answer to a problem.
That said, I can name several topics where one side will be censored by moderation. I can do this with a science topics as well as political topics, and anyone that's been here for a while knows the same thing. Slashdot can do this because it's not a scientific paper publishing site, it's an OP/ED site primarily focused on topics geeks like.
"Science" today is in trouble, don't get me wrong. Watching bogus papers get published and treated as fact has become all too common. Some have been outright spoofs, but others are published for political agendas. The latter is extremely troubling for society..
These people are generally not bringing their gun on an airplane because they want to shoot someone (I can't vouch for everyone's intent). These are people that probably have a valid conceal carry permit, don't normally fly, and just worked out of habit only to have their stuff confiscated. Meaning, that while it was an error they can't get their stuff back.
Do I find an inert hand grenade paperweight to be a terribly frightening weapon? Nope, but the TSA does and confiscates those too. Gag items like giant scissors are not a threat either, well maybe if they were sharpened in in the hands of Chuck Norris (who would be a threat without the giant scissors). A "cannon ball" is not a threat without, well.. a cannon and a good amount of black powder.
Maybe the term "mens rea" is lost on you, but it has been a critical part of western legal systems for centuries. At least until recently anyway. IMHO this is just the TSA trying to A) Justify their job. and B) Attempt to humor us in that attempt.
This is anything but safe, do at least make an attempt to contemplate your answer before giving it.. There is no magic storage for Radioactive material. Material must be handled over and over again because containers break down, and material must be transported from the plant to the disposal area. There is a whole shit ton of logistics you are ignoring if you claim "we can just bury it safely".
I'd agree that it's no more dangerous than a nuclear power plant to begin with, but that does not make either "safe".
You also seem quite wedded to the idea that the world is a simple matter of "who's to blame" and that you can just stick simple labels on people, like Snowden is a "whistle-blower" (and not, therefore, a traitor of the highest order). Sadly for this naive view, Snowden didn't blow any actual whistles, he just dumped a ton of documents and ran.
Exposing corruption is not being a traitor, no matter how many times you try and claim it. I realize that in propaganda school they teach you to lie until people believe it, but in this case we never will. Snowden did not release names of agents or criminals, he exposed the high level slide shows used to train people to perform illegal surveillance. These documents demonstrated that the agency is not worried very much about "Drug Gangs" as TFA tries to claim, it's worried about people who question what their own Governments are doing.
If the GCHQ was not having agents sift through email and tweets looking for people trying to organize for protests (you know, exercising free speech) they could actually focus on crime. If they were not trying to silence journalists questioning policies, they may be able to catch drug gangs. They could do so legally because they would have the resources available to do so. Instead, you have these agencies working to stifle free speech and collaborate with other countries to help them stifle free speech in their countries as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I gave the examples regarding public school, not private school. Public schools must follow Government laws and mandates, which is quite different from Private schools who don't have to follow the same rules.. just pass the same tests. I know because from K-7 grades my kid was in private school. There was no private high school close enough to where we lived for him to finish in private school so we had to switch to public. Public schools are extremely hostile toward men, and the bureaucracy ensures that it is. Public school advancement requires following the "program" and ratting out anyone doing anything differently. Making people look bad so that you look good, and it's way too easy to make a guy look bad.
Simple, every male teacher is a punching bag with a huge target on them. You smiled at the girl when she turned in her paper, you are a pedophile man! Girl hugs the male teacher, he goes to jail. Female teacher fucks a student, claims "alcohol was the problem" and walks away. Wholly fuck, you would not be able to pay me enough to teach with the current climate. No, I quit mentoring too for similar reasons! The only way a guy can be safe in a school is to have a woman with him 100% of the time, and he's still fucked if she decides he's no longer needed.
Contrary to you pulling out the race card, there is an underlying problem with TFA's points. Primarily, that a Country can only be successful when taking care of itself FIRST. I realize that this takes some deep thought to comprehend, you are not going to get it if you continue to look at things as you proposed as a racial issue. It's not a racial issue, it's an economic issue.
Look long and hard at the US, and what happens when a country dumps out all of it's local income generation for "cheaper products". We are still told that this is the way it should be, but it's bullshit. That economic model only benefits the top .01% who already has way more wealth than they could ever spend. For the rest of society, we are shafted by the deal. Read Milton Friedman, perhaps you will understand.. if you can get over your simple belief that it's only bias that stops importing workers at any rate. Carol Quigley is another great read to understand how this is economic, not racial. Racial issues are what rich people use to keep us bickering with each other, arguing over who has the larger pile of sand.... while they polish their gold. (not all of it obviously, there are pure bigots but those people are easy to deal with in the grand scheme of things)
Today's economic model does not match what gave us tremendous growth and achievements. Henry Fords model was pure capitalism. Pay the worker well, they will buy the products. Not just the cars, but the furniture so that the furniture makers can afford cars too, and the guys in the restaurant, etc... Middle class income _IS_ the mobile income in society. Middle class people don't hoard, they spend what they make. When you take away the middle class income, the economy and growth all stagnates. This is the problem with the last 40 years of economic policy, the middle class has vanished and the top .01% have grown exponentially in wealth. That is factual, you can research the statistics. The US today is ranked 4th in the world for economic disparity (yes, we are worse than nearly every other country in the world). We are at the same level today as we were in 1928, but it looks better since we are printing out more and more fiat money as loans.
Importing workers does not make better programmers. Innovation and education makes better programmers, interest in societies development makes better programmers, and more importantly opportunity makes better programmers. If we don't have a positive economic outlook (which I will argue most people 30 and under have) then it does not matter who you bring in. Society needs to change, and the money has to get out of a few select hands and back into average people's hands. That is how we will see improvement, not by simply importing a few people at reduced wages further depressing wages for US workers.
Personally, I don't have anything against "globalization" if it's done where everyone prospers. That has not been happening with any of the Globalization that has occurred. The majority has suffered under the current policies, so I'm against the current economic policies that continue to pool wealth into few hands.
Is raise awareness and keep things in the independent press. Nobody from the Government has gone to jail for any of these abuses, and this should infuriate people. Our TV based media is not harping on this, they harp on everything but holding the Government accountable for their actions. If you really want to make change you have to get people awake to the severity of the problems, normal media channels work for the same team as our Government.
Why do you think that cops were more accountable 30 or 40 years ago?
Before an answer, I will say that a large part of that trust came from being ignorant to the way the world actually works. I was young, delusional, and believed that authorities would never lie. Outside of Nixon and Kissinger of course. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say, and looking back I don't believe they were as accountable as I wanted to believe.. but there are several differences between today and then in attitude and training of law enforcement.
Back then, police were not held in a higher regard than the public. Respected, sure.. but a cop's actions were measured by their risk to the public. For example, the commando style raids we see today are a very new phenomenon. 30-40 years ago this would not have happened unless someone's life was in eminent danger. Today we have commandos chucking grenades into houses to serve warrants. We have commando style raids for non-violent crimes like drug dealing. Cops shooting family pets because they claim "I was afraid of the dog". Those things simply did not happen back then. Police were expected to respect the public as much as the public respected them.
There are many other differences in training and actions found to be acceptable then and now. A cop shooting someone today can simply use the excuse "I thought I was in danger", even when it's a kid playing army with his buddies. That would have had an officer suspended without pay 40 years ago, and back then there were many more kids out playing army/cops & robbers, etc.... Toy guns were much more common, hell we brought them to school to play at recess.
Lastly hiring practices are much different then and now. Then, there was more worry about public perception of officers. Cops were expected to outsmart the bad guys, not kick their asses. Today agencies want the ass kickers, bad asses, and bullies. "Gangs" are not something new, so that excuse does not work as the justification.
Accountability is a good thing, and something severely lacking today. We have enough independent footage to know that events that happen should not, but since the footage is from "independent" sources they are all labelled questionable. A source that can be held with fewer questions, such as the body cameras by cops, would add much to a case like Michael Brown. Even if the camera was not facing Michael Brown at the onset of the encounter, audio could have been used to determine who's story was most accurate.
Thirty/Forty years ago I would have always taken the cops word over an encounter. Today, not so much. What you point out is exactly correct. People behave different when they are being watched, which includes "people" in Law enforcement.
Because it's not possible to have both, unless you are just going to be a baby factory and let the State raise the kids. Is that another thing you want? And trust me, I'm a huge advocate for Plato's "The Republic" but that is one area where I completely disagree with Socrates. (if you are confused read the book)
Being a parent is a full time job all on its own. Not everyone can be like the Yahoo CEO and build a nursery next to her office to spend some time with the kid while at work. Most women in fact are not in such a position, and many don't want the stress of having a baby at work anyway. Instead of admonishing or belittling a person for wanting to be a parent, prop them up for being a parent.
Oh I know, I'm a misogynist for claiming that the woman should do these things. If of course you ignore the fact that men don't have the breasts to breast feed, and lack the uterus to carry a baby from conception to birth. After birth, I'm fine either way. I work with a lady who pumps all day and her husband takes care of the baby (and their other 2 children) all day. Nothing wrong with this arrangement in my opinion, and in today's society it's often the fiscally responsible choice.
Stop painting any woman without a career in some_company as a bad thing, and relationships as a bad thing. Parents (yes, that is plural) should both be involved in a kids life, and this happens when we promote the benefits of relationships and promote accountability for actions (such as pregnancy). This trend of 2 people being required to work full time at a company is a very new one, it really started in the 1970s and 80s.
But then again, I have not hear the arguments about the patriarchy and misogyny for a while so at least it's different agenda based reporting.
Society does not have enough turmoil, so we have to invent and spew more...
Except as I stated to someone else, the system won't change with the same players in the system. No candidates in the last election, or the one before that, or the one before that, ad nauseam, have changing our system on their agendas. Zero, zip, nada, primarily because their livelihood depends on the current broken system. If it's fixed, they lose their jobs (or have a strong chance of doing so). We could use the same exact arguments to discuss term limits, which have also been discussed by the populace but never voted on favorably by the politicians who rely on this broken system for their paychecks.
I surely agree that the current system is horribly broken. Maintaining the system won't "fix" it, so enough people have to vote to change the system in order to invoke changes./p.
If only our Politicians thought this simply, but I do like the idea.
So the US Media and Politicians never switched the blame from the GOP who claimed responsibility for the hack to the DPRK never happened? The shift in blame is all black helicopters and "hookey"? Really now, I think you need a reality check, because this is not a casual link but _WHAT HAPPENED_.
Perhaps you are considering that the CIA did make changes to Sony PR information is also just a casual link, even though the emails prove this. More black helicopters and casual strands right?
Believe everything you are told by our Media, they have never lied before. Same goes for the politicians, and remember Saddam really had mountains of yellow cake and dirty bombs.. GW told you so, and it has to be true.
This is after the fact we are talking about, not what ever fantasy land you pretend to live in. Sony did not have to out their execs, hackers did that for them. The original group that took credit never mentioned either the movie or the DPRK. That was a side show to divert attention away from the content of the emails and put CISPA SOPA back on the political agenda. You are choosing to ignore investigative journalists who do this for a living from The Intercept and Wired. Oh, I know.. according to you Glen Greenwald must just be a 9/11 truther because you say so and correlate anyone that questions Government actions to an easy to play lie card. Pathetic, simply pathetic, reasoning skills you have going on there.
Here is a tidbit, but we can go further. For example Opium production in Afghanistan was prohibited under the Taliban and right before the war Opium production was at record lows. Right after the invasion opium production goes to all time highs and has remained at all time highs ever since. There were plenty of lies regarding nearly every war, it's a question of whether or not there was also enough justification for "bad" to start the war. I don't believe any of our recent wars have such justification, but of course that is my educated opinion.
As to the comment from Halivar, stating that "Sony works for the CIA": That is a goddamn idiotic statement for anyone to make. It does not discount what is obvious and provable collusion between huge corporations and Governments, which we have plenty of _proof_ for in the US. We try to pretty some of it up by labeling it "just lobbying", but in reality it's outright bribery, blackmail, cronyism, and nepotism. The levels of collusion are not just courtesy, it's input to operations in both directions. Whistle blowers from nearly every major "news" outlet have claimed this, and many from Hollywood have made similar claims regarding Hollywood's itinerary and direction for movies. "Oh, they only did that in WW I and WWII" really does not make sense, but this is what people will attempt to claim.
Nowhere do I even imply that this is about money for Sony. This is about demonizing the DPRK, not money. It's about bringing back CISPA/SOPA legislation, and demonizing hackers in general. It's politics, not money driven.
Before you attempt to make a false claim the answer is "N", I'm not a fan of the DPRK Government and don't intend any implication that they are the good guys. Quite the contrary, if everything we are told is true they are a despicable dictatorship. At the same time, lying to topple dictators for a political agenda has not turned out well anywhere else. Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan are easy examples of lies to topple Governments that have been horrific for the populations living in that country. We don't conquer to establish a better Government for them, we topple to destabilize and exploit resources.
Further, we can't topple the DPRK without pissing off China and suffering severe consequences.
fixed link https://firstlook.org/theinter...
It simply demonstrates the sham that we were told a week ago today. There is no threat from the DPRK, just fear mongering typical political spin for an agenda the people are not privy to see. The Intercept has an article hinting at what I'm sure others guessed here.
Wired had the article last week demonstrating how week the link is to the Sony hack and the DPRK.
I normally enjoy Seth Rogan's movies, but in this case I'll wait for the TV edition. I don't need to pay for the propaganda machine willfully.
And we will change our broken system of FPTP gerrymandered electoral college how exactly? Last election there were exactly 0 candidates willing to change the system. Primarily because their livelihood depends on the current broken system. We don't see any traction on things like term limits for the same reason.
Sure, I agree that there is a huge hurdle. We have to jump it to move forward.
Telling people to either not vote, or to only vote D or R will never change the status quo. There is no possible way to get away from the currently broken system claiming "the US is a two party system" (which it is not and has never been) by doing nothing.. or doing the same thing over and over.
Results _require_ action! If you want to change the system you need everyone voting and voting against the status quo. Promoting Einstein's definition of insanity will never make things better. It can't, and this expectation is exactly insane. "Oh, if we only voted for this Democrat or That Republican things would be different". Yet this is what gets repeated over and over.
If you don't like the path the US is on, vote for anything except the status quo! The argument of "those guys are bought and paid for too" may or may not be true, but if they are they surely don't receive the amount of money and pandering that the D and R candidates do.
Intentionally running a MITM attack against your customers aside, there is a huge problem with the legislation to begin with. There is a valid answer, and has been for quite a while, for people that want to keep their kids away from porn without the heavy handed Government regulation.
Cybersitter and NetNanny are not for me, but if I had young kids I may use that type of service if I was worried about their access. These companies get paid to manage content for you, and are _completely_voluntary so don't impose restrictions on everyone. And if those services are not available in the UK, or not good enough in the UK, why not create the company and let the free market do the work? As bad as the US has become, I'm glad I'm not from the UK.
Good job repeating the propaganda citizen, we have reserved an extra slice of cheese for your next compensation package. You did now however follow the main line "Vote Democrat and Republican or you waste your vote" so we will be removing said extra slice of cheese.
I agree with you, but will point out that TFA is discussing something else. Science is not about having a majority understand, or be "interested". This means that real science tends to be ignored. Sometimes real science goes against the grain, and that science is never peer reviewed either. Meaning that the same status quo is maintained even if it's not scientific.
Slashdot's biggest topics are not "Science" but politics. This is an area which is extremely complex and there may not be a definitive answer to a problem.
That said, I can name several topics where one side will be censored by moderation. I can do this with a science topics as well as political topics, and anyone that's been here for a while knows the same thing. Slashdot can do this because it's not a scientific paper publishing site, it's an OP/ED site primarily focused on topics geeks like.
"Science" today is in trouble, don't get me wrong. Watching bogus papers get published and treated as fact has become all too common. Some have been outright spoofs, but others are published for political agendas. The latter is extremely troubling for society..
These people are generally not bringing their gun on an airplane because they want to shoot someone (I can't vouch for everyone's intent). These are people that probably have a valid conceal carry permit, don't normally fly, and just worked out of habit only to have their stuff confiscated. Meaning, that while it was an error they can't get their stuff back.
Do I find an inert hand grenade paperweight to be a terribly frightening weapon? Nope, but the TSA does and confiscates those too. Gag items like giant scissors are not a threat either, well maybe if they were sharpened in in the hands of Chuck Norris (who would be a threat without the giant scissors). A "cannon ball" is not a threat without, well.. a cannon and a good amount of black powder.
Maybe the term "mens rea" is lost on you, but it has been a critical part of western legal systems for centuries. At least until recently anyway. IMHO this is just the TSA trying to A) Justify their job. and B) Attempt to humor us in that attempt.
Come on guys, nobody is buying it. It can't be that after Iraq and the WMDs, or Benghazi, that people know we are flat out liars. MORE PROPAGANDA!
This is anything but safe, do at least make an attempt to contemplate your answer before giving it.. There is no magic storage for Radioactive material. Material must be handled over and over again because containers break down, and material must be transported from the plant to the disposal area. There is a whole shit ton of logistics you are ignoring if you claim "we can just bury it safely".
I'd agree that it's no more dangerous than a nuclear power plant to begin with, but that does not make either "safe".
You also seem quite wedded to the idea that the world is a simple matter of "who's to blame" and that you can just stick simple labels on people, like Snowden is a "whistle-blower" (and not, therefore, a traitor of the highest order). Sadly for this naive view, Snowden didn't blow any actual whistles, he just dumped a ton of documents and ran.
Exposing corruption is not being a traitor, no matter how many times you try and claim it. I realize that in propaganda school they teach you to lie until people believe it, but in this case we never will. Snowden did not release names of agents or criminals, he exposed the high level slide shows used to train people to perform illegal surveillance. These documents demonstrated that the agency is not worried very much about "Drug Gangs" as TFA tries to claim, it's worried about people who question what their own Governments are doing.
If the GCHQ was not having agents sift through email and tweets looking for people trying to organize for protests (you know, exercising free speech) they could actually focus on crime. If they were not trying to silence journalists questioning policies, they may be able to catch drug gangs. They could do so legally because they would have the resources available to do so. Instead, you have these agencies working to stifle free speech and collaborate with other countries to help them stifle free speech in their countries as well.