What you elaborate on is exactly what I took issue with, thanks very much for going the extra step. I tried to find some journalism to back her position on Uber in France, in fact I spent a good 30 minutes trying to find an article demonstrating that Uber was doing something wrong, or doing something different than other taxi services in France, or the Uber was being paid to drive 11 year old Chinese girls into sex slave camps, something. I found nothing, except the article that Buzzfeed links to, which appears to be nothing more than a rant. Perhaps it's not a rant, I tried to give the benefit of the doubt. I'd still give the benefit of the doubt if I could find any facts to back her statement regarding why she was "Deleting Uber".
I also picture the "reporter" for Buzzfeed lining up to get the comment he got. Reporter: "Hey, you know how in that one article they got the person to quit journalism by posting personal data". Exec "Yeah, sometimes I wonder if we should do that". This is why the missing context is a huge concern.
It's not like Uber actually did send out this persons private information, the whole article based on a statement with no context, and not actions.
Please take your SJW rant to a place like Amsterdam or Germany that has legalized prostitution, watch how fast you get laughed out of the country.
Your rant is only valid in a place like the US that has a prohibition on prostitution. Interestingly "modeling" is legal (see one of the Jenner kids pouring champagne off of their ass), and "advertizing" (see just about every TV add that uses sexual references [sometimes innuendo sometimes direct])is legal, songs can contain direct sexual statements, a barely legal teenager gets on stage and masturbates with a teddy bear and that is national "news", but "prostitution" is.. oh noes, the actual act referenced in all of those other places.
Ever consider why places even the US that have legalized prostitution don't have the issues we normally associate with all of the places where prostitution is illegal, such as Pimps and Drug addict hookers? Maybe you should step off the moral soap box and evaluate your bias.
One funding group alone from the US provided 5 billion dollars to the Euromaiden party, where do you believe the money was spent? While you have to dig for the information, prior to the coup there were several reports of both of those mercenary companies being in Kiev (technically they are the same group with different names).
Initial ballistic reports from investigators was that the same snipers were shooting at both protesters and police. After the coup the investigation was handed over to UK investigators and died after the transition. Cablegate makes this pretty clear, and it's not hard to add 2 and 2 together.
I don't think you gave much thought to this comment before you made it.
My point was not that the Uber exec was in the right, I don't even think it was implied. My point was that other people are also wrong. When the kids are all bickering about who did what and why so and so pushed so and so you don't just ground Billy. If you are a fair person you will either ignore the all of the arguments, or you try and sort out which pieces of which stories might be true and correct all of the misdeeds.
TFA's summary appears to attempt to imply misogyny emphasizing that a female reporter was a target, which ignores 75% of the journalists allegedly mentioned by the exec. (see next)
The female journalist discussed made a public accusation: Sarah Lacy, the editor of the Silicon Valley website PandoDaily, a sometimes combative voice inside the industry. Lacy recently accused Uber of “sexism and misogyny.” She wrote that she was deleting her Uber app after BuzzFeed News reported that Uber appeared to be working with a French escort service. “I don’t know how many more signals we need that the company simply doesn’t respect us or prioritize our safety,” she wrote. I can't find any journalism to back the statements of the reporter so can't determine if this is an actual issue. The claim of misogyny and Uber working with a French escort service is valid or an attack? (The article Buzzfeed links is a pissing match, not journalism. Google shows no articles by the person or magazine given my search terms[I tried many].)
The Buzzfeed article is based on off the record comments made at a private dinner. In a statement through an Uber spokeswoman, Michael said: “The remarks attributed to me at a private dinner — borne out of frustration during an informal debate over what I feel is sensationalistic media coverage of the company I am proud to work for — do not reflect my actual views and have no relation to the company’s views or approach. They were wrong no matter the circumstance and I regret them.”
Was the dialogue guided to this point by the reporter? Valid question considering we see the one statement buy the exec and no other portion of the conversation. Context for dialogue is pretty critical.
The person that said these things was also, obviously, a scummy person for saying things.
Let's face it, Uber and Lyft have both been taking a ton of heat from "journalists". Some is legitimate, but the over emphasis of certain events and location "bans" is more related to them not paying the toll to the right gatekeepers, and not systemic problems.
While surely there is value in someone marketing your skills, the problem with IT is that it's damn near impossible to tell if someone is bullshitting or not without talking to them. Even then, it's possible for someone to bullshit quite a bit, basing their interview on lots of scripts and not lots of knowledge. (Unfortunately there are companies out there that teach people to bullshit through interviews).
An "agent" for IT people is often seen as the enemy to other IT people (headhunters and recruiters). Their job is to add to the bullshit to make the candidate a better sell, not cut through the crap and get a person who's skill set matches the needs.
So you are petitioning the US Government to cause revolts and unrest in one of the most despicable regimes there is right? You know, the country that does not allow women to drive or vote, beheads people for practicing a Religion other than Muslim, has Religious police that will arrest people for not facing Mecca and praying as the Government prescribes, executes thieves, and kills anyone daring to speak out about their Government? Saudi Arabia, just in case you miss it from the description.
If that's the policy the Government is pushing it needs to be unilateral. If it's not a unilateral "anti tyranny" policy it's bias.
Where's the modern day East India company in your analogy? What "mercenary powers" have been given to this company?
Look at companies like Blackwater and The Craft and who they work for and benefit. They are not limited to activity for profit and control in the Middle East, but were also in the Ukraine prior to the revolt.
What I read here is the US did this, the West did that. While simultaneously ignoring that Russia has been behaving worse.
Well, you fail politics 101 because the US is in the West. You also failed to read that in terms of the Ukraine neither East or West is looking at Ukraine's best interests or their people's desire to control their own destiny. US intervention (providing money, guns, and training) and private mercenaries (The Craft, Blackwater) is just as bad as Russia sending in their troops. In fact US intervention methodology is so good that last week Russia's military leadership said that they are considering the same methods because of how much money private firms in the US have been making doing this.
As a Math major I had to take Fortan and C (was quite some time ago obviously) and we never had Windows, let alone "Visual Studio" or Visual C for that matter. It was not until a semester of C was complete that I went and bought Bordland Turbo C/C++. Then Delphi came out, and what a dream that was! Fortran, Pascal and C all available for the back end coding, and GUI builders in C++ for the front end where I did not need to know much about graphics programming.
Then, as with all good competing products Microsoft fucked them over to steal market share and Bordland pretty much vanished. The Microsoft products were inferior in every way and I never wrote another piece of code for a Windows anything (I boycotted Windows, and still do today using their products only where forced.).
Back on point, you can easily write College level classes for C and/or C++. The real problem is that politics keeps people from doing so (threats of revoking educational licenses, etc..). I have tons of books on C, and you could easily learn.
So not only is code.org pushing for more programmers, but now we have people saying "skip college and program"? Do these mega billionaires not realize how obvious their plot is to flood the market with programmers so that they can take even more money from society?
Giving money to help others makes the world a better place, and is praiseworthy. Complaining about others doing so isn't helping.
Let us take a few billionaires in the US and see what "giving" could result in. Bill Gates with an estimated personal wealth of 67 Billion dollars could give away 66 Billion and still have a billion left (enough to live comfortably for the rest of his life and make his children very wealthy when he dies). That would purchase 660,000 houses for the homeless population in the US valued at 100,000 each. This is more than the amount of homeless people estimated in the US (by approximately 50,000) so would help 50,000 families in poverty as well. Add in Warren Buffet (53B), Larry Ellison(43B), the Koch brothers (34B each), and we have quite a few families that were in poverty in the US that now have a house bought and paid for.
Notice that we don't even touch a guy like David Rockefeller because his net worth is not reported, but estimated at 340 Billion dollars. That wealth alone would purchase 3.4 million houses valued at 100,000 each.
I would fully agree that the plan to purchase all of these people houses would not solve all of the problems, those people would need to get some form of income to pay their property tax every year, maintain the houses, and pay for insurance. The Walton family and all it's members could chip in some of their combined estimate of 130 Billion dollars into a fund to ensure that people can get by during hard times or just prepay the tax and insurance. Michael Bloomberg(27B), Jeff Bezos(25B) and Larry Page(23B) could all chip in as well, to make sure these people get education, medicine, etc.. to ensure that all of these people become productive members of society.
The guy that can't afford giving 60.00 without missing a phone bill would probably not complain if these stories were not presented as though these billionaires were making a sacrifice. Sure, it's nice that they give something to causes but the billionaires also seem to only give what they can benefit from giving. The issue is in the presentation, and it should be expected that people that do give what they can afford to the donation buckets have some resentment.
"Whether it's winning yacht races, assembling the best computer science faculty, or even dominating high school basketball, billionaires like to win. Which may help explain why three tech billionaires — Code.org backers (and FWD.us founders) Mark Zuckerberg, VC John Doerr, and Sean Parker — stepped up to the plate and helped out Code.org's once-anemic Hour of Code Indiegogo crowdfunding project with $500k
I guess they could have bragged about how great their skiing abilities are compared to the Urban crowd that can't afford 100K worth of gear and 1,000/day lift fees to make things look worse.
Here is a novel idea, read the book for yourself and see what it says regarding education. After you do this, get back to me and we can discuss whether or not Socrates was correct regarding public education.
I never stated plumbing was a lucrative job, I don't even think I hinted at it. Automation has it's place, but many things are not better given our current ability to automate.
These wealthy tech billionaires see the writing on the wall and are trying to help equip the masses to be more relevant in tomorrow's job market.
These wealthy billionaires did not become wealthy billionaires by altruism, sorry. I appreciate your opinion, but I don't believe for one second that they have societies best interest in mind with this push. I consider that they read the reference I provided and took the message of Sophistry and Machiavelli instead of altruism. I could be wrong, but you would have to provide with evidence and we would have to debate case by case.
There is a great portion of my favorite book on Political thought regarding wages and the Artisan. Socrates points out that once a person in society receives ample money for a project they no longer have incentive to do future work. Socrates continues stating that this is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the person with the wealth is now free to meddle in the affairs of everybody else in society. That meddling is almost never in societies interests, but that person or the person's close friends and associates, so that they gain further control of society and have more stuff than everyone else.
That book in case you are interested is Plato's "The Republic".
The whole "everyone should code" argument is foolish. Society needs plumbers, welders, architects, accountants, doctors, physicists, line workers, and every other job there is. As society has demand for jobs the wages should go up, which draws people into the needed jobs. Since coders are in demand and receive good wages for their work, it seems at least some of this push is to artificially reduce the wages by flooding the market. And lets face it, there are not a whole lot of decent paying middle class jobs left in the US any longer.
Even if that... "news".... were available from a reputable source, George Soros isn't an arm of the US government.
Did you note above what I said about cherry picking? Instead of cherry picking a fragment of the statement why not do the work and find out which groups were funding the Euromaidens and how many were US Agencies? You want me to treat you as a person that is not a shill, do the work. All you have to do is follow the instruction and read the returns. Make sure you review the results fairly, and don't cherry pick only pieces of what's return to back your belief.
What do you think the Constitution has to say about any of that? You dislike assisting other countries in building democratic institutions?
First, the Constitution defines declarations of war clearly, Congress must declare war. This new phenomenon of "executive order" wars are not defined in the Constitution. In fact every President that has done so has been threatened with impeachment, including LBJ and both of the Bush presidents.
Second, there are no Constitutional provisions claiming we must help (fund, arm, train, etc..) [insert country] build a democracy in any way shape or form.
Nonsense. What country has IBM or General Motors conquered and ruled? None.
It was stated very plainly that both sides are dishonest. Looks like CF found some sock puppet assistance since his personal attack of me has been moderated "insightful" and my post moderated "flame bait".
I could have probably presented my case more evenly, there is a bit of bias there. At the same time, we already get the US Spin on the issues from just about every source so it was not intentional bias but highlighting the other side of the debate.
Putin has troops in Ukraine trying to take territory from Ukraine, NATO doesn't. But if you think that "cablegate" is the equivalent, please do point out how? It seems to me that your "abhorrence" of Putin doesn't seem to go so far as to opposition to open aggression.
Over 5 billion dollars was provided to the Euromaiden movement prior to the "revolt" by the US Government and US think-tank groups. At least some of the new leaders had, and have, affiliation with Nazi parties. They walk around with ski masks and AK 47s in Government offices and US media announces how "Free" the Ukrainian people are after this revolt. Regular ole people have been massacred all over the Ukraine on both sides, simply for having a different view on what would be best for the Ukraine.
Neither East or West argues for Ukrainian autonomy. Russia want's them in their trade block, the West want's them to be members of the European Union trade block. The People of the Ukraine are split, and we are told that both sides with guns and power know the answer. Puh-leaze. In US media, we only see the pro West point of view. Everything else is blamed on Russia, even though as the article above demonstrates Russian involvement is not the only problem. Nor would I say it's the major problem, there are two sides equally to blame.
You are trying to draw a distinction between providing trained solders with guns as a private army and providing the money, guns, and training to civilians for a private army. There is very little distinction to be had, so stop trying to amplify it as if it matters.
Now lets look at some recent history regarding how good US policy in funding these colored revolutions has been. Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, they are all a horrible mess. If you take the argument "well those guys were horrible dictators" I ask why you don't put Saudi Arabia on the same hit list as Libya? Turkey? Qatar? DPRK? In other words, the policies are not uniform so can't be just about "horrible dictators". Hell, at least we can excuse our lack of action in DPRK as a fear of Chinese retaliation, we have no excuse in the Middle East with countries like Saudi Arabia.
Because this is not a black and white issue? Whether or not US involvement is morally correct aside, lets look at a few facts regarding US involvement in the Middle East and Eastern block including the Ukraine. USAID and numerous other US agencies pumped a lot of money into these countries for the various revolutions. 5 Billion dollars was dumped into the Euromaiden coffers prior to the "revolt" (Search "Soros spending on Euromaidan" and you can read reports). Similar reports exist for every recent "revolt" in Europe and the Middle East, and reports from Asia show similar attempts to "influence" revolts in China. We also have western governments openly and actively backing some revolutionaries. The West bombed Gaddafi's troops in Libya, are arming and training rebels in Syria, etc...
Again, keep morality out of the equation for now. If you were the leader of Russia or China and you saw this happening, would you not read this as a direct attack against you? If you were Russia or China and you started sending in your own "advisers" and/or bombing rebels do you see this as self defense or aggression? If you were on the other side of the border you are going to view your actions as self defense.
So the morality question is subjective. Personally I dislike the West's method of imperialism. It's a round about method of invade and conquer without spending troops and bypasses the Constitution. I further don't agree that this is the "best" way to improve our own Country, let alone the rest of the World.
What we should be, is a role model that people try and adopt. Our Republic is supposed to represent all of the people of the Nation and function so well that everyone tries to mimic it in every country across the globe.
What we have today is more reminiscent of the East India company. Executive orders for "war" and private funding has given mercenary powers to big business bypassing Constitutional requirements for declaration of war by Congress and the People.
The anomalies I pointed are ordered for the specific reason. In my opinion, the most obvious and interesting theory is that Putin's plane was near the same air space close to the same time as MH17 (something I have not seen mentioned in US media or in this thread). This could have been a simple, yet tragic, case of mistaken identity.
We don't have the reports from the investigators, and may never have their reports. Looking at an event like MH17 does require investigating the benefits of shooting down a plane. Lacking evidence all theories are valid as each other.
Like it or not, dialogue is a two way street. I have tried, often pretty hard, to have a rational dialogue with you. With you, it's a one way street and you are the only one on the street. You can't, and never have said "hmm, I never thought of it that way" or "I never realized other people perceive things that way", to you it's what the establishment said. You consistently cherry pick fragments of fact to back your pro establishment opinion. You ignore facts that don't back the pro establishment opinion and name call "conspiracy" anything you dislike.
I made the statement above that both sides are being dishonest about the Ukraine, not the first time I have made that statement,and your response is to name call and attack that statement. You called me an "apologist" and my perspective "biased", then you want to complain about being called a shill and troll?
The two historical post examples you provide are no exception. In both cases read the whole goddamn thread instead of cherry picking a fragment. Read what is written by you and the people you respond to from top to bottom, because that is a conversation. Make sure you take note of the moderation and who is moderated a "troll" in both threads.
In the first example you pointed to a particular response from a person who claims that anyone investigating what Architects and Engineers say about the government report on the 9/11 attacks is "dishonoring the dead". They are entitled to their opinion, but I find the facts laid out in ae911 reports to be relevant and, well, facts. His opinion does not make facts go away, and does not make the Government's reports magically valid. His defense is not explaining how the Architects and Engineers are wrong, but to attack my signature and label the subject "conspiracy theory". That should sound very familiar to you, since you do the same thing often enough.
Most importantly, look at your posts and what you responded to in that whole thread. The first post is an active military person who hopes that things don't escalate in Syria because they are on active duty, to which you respond "Sniff..sniff..??... sniff..sniff....... smells like a troll to me.". Someone else, over a year ago, provides their opinion of you as "It's not - cold fjord is our resident boot-licking statist, and you just stepped on his dick with your honest account."
In the second example you provided, again, read the damn thread. I stated that there are many abuses that should have officials in jail. Such as the establishment telling the police to attack journalists. Now look at your answer, which is paraphrased as "You support people killing cops". Look at the moderation on the thread, who is a troll and who is insightful? I did not moderate the thread, I provided a fact based opinion which you attacked. When I showed you that your response was nothing but a stream of fallacies you retort with CNN opinion pieces. This is a trend, not a one time event (see the thread we are currently in).
I don't post pro establishment nonsense, because much of it is nonsense. People can get the pro establishment opinion by turning on any "news" station in the US. I don't believe what I'm told, I question what I'm told. You consistently attack anyone that questions the establishment, often with very elaborate fallacies trying to mask the attack and belittle the people you are responding to. Then again, you frequently attack people openly and don't try to hide it.
You brought the bias on yourself. Contrary to your invalid attempt to diminish the amount of people that perceive you as a shill, look at how your posts are consistently moderated negatively. That is because of _YOUR_ method of attacking people, your lack of ability to hold courteous dialogue, your policy of cherry picking facts you like and negatively labeling facts you don't like. Either change your mode of dialogue, which would change people's perception of you, or expect that you will be ignored and labeled.
Typically conspiracy charges crosses from free speech to criminal when someone takes steps further than talking about it. For instance, if you and a friend were sitting around smoking a joint talking about how easy it would be to rob a bank, it would be free speech. If you or your friend started staking banks out and purchasing supplies you discussed, it can become a criminal conspiracy whether you actually robbed the bank or not.
I think you are making the waters too muddy. "Speech" is not the part of this that's illegal. I can tell my friend "I want to rob a bank" all day long and there is nothing illegal in saying it. The Government, even if they had a recording of me saying so, has no grounds for prosecution. Saying something is not a "conspiracy", and it's not illegal.
In your example, smoking pot may be the illegal part so yup you are going to be in trouble. Drafting up the blue prints for how to rob the bank, buying the weapons, writing the note for the teller, those are things that would be "conspiracy". Talking alone is not a conspiracy, and should not be ever considered a conspiracy. Not that we are still practicing the Law as we should, or even as we did 30 years ago, but there is supposed to be "mens rea" in any conviction. Meaning, without a motive there can be no crime. So if there is a crime, such as your conspiracy, you can use the discussion as the motive. Not the other way around.
So you are claiming that the former cop was teaching these guys to yell "FIRE!" in a theater? Throw bottles off of a building? Nothing you said relates to the first amendment, so I'm confused. He would also have to have some form of authority to make them yell "Fire" in a theater or throw bottles off a building.
Teaching someone to lie is something College Professors do in rhetoric and debate classes, are they all going to go to jail too? Can we please jail all of the politicians that have been caught lying too (Clapper, Bush, Obama, Gruber, Lerner - I could go on all day)? They have had a much worse impact on society than this guy, who is trying to teach society that the Polygraph is nothing more than a tarot card system used by law enforcement to gain convictions.
On that last part, I'm sure you are aware that if you refuse to take a Polygraph the prosecutor can, and will, announce to the Jury that you refused to take the Polygraph. If you agree to take the Polygraph and fail, they will use the results to try and convince the Jury you are guilty (hey, you agreed). The only time the Polygraph does not matter is when you take it and pass. In other words: Even though it's not legal to force someone to take it the polygraph theresults and action are both admissible in court, and only in a way that favors prosecution.
Elderly, women, and children are traditionally evacuated from war zones, not drafted in to fight. This does not imply that one life is worth more than another, and is not intended to. The point was that the people killed were not a threat, where military aged men could have legitimately been portrayed as a threat.
I appreciate the defense. Personally I usually ignore the troll you just responded to. This person has a history of ignoring facts and painting the establishment's opinion as factual. Not just on this topic, but every political topic. Clapper didn't lie, Feinstein never called Snowden a traitor (but of course they will tell you Snowden was a traitor who deserves to die), Saddam really did have WMDs and was buying yellow cake, etc.... To them, the establishment opinion is fact and any contrary information is either "conspiracy theory" or ignored.
My conclusion is that this person is a paid shill. I don't believe anyone can consistently be so blind to facts and pro administration. I can say with certainty that I have seen at least a dozen formulate the same opinion as myself. You can read the persons post history and draw your own conclusion.
Please ask someone with approximately a 3rd grade education how to define the phrase "do not expect". I'll give you a hint, it does not translate to a refusal.
After the third grader helps you with the meaning of the phrase, I would appreciate if came and apologized out of courtesy. Since you were trolling, I have no such expectation but it would be appreciated.
Slashdot Mirror
What you elaborate on is exactly what I took issue with, thanks very much for going the extra step. I tried to find some journalism to back her position on Uber in France, in fact I spent a good 30 minutes trying to find an article demonstrating that Uber was doing something wrong, or doing something different than other taxi services in France, or the Uber was being paid to drive 11 year old Chinese girls into sex slave camps, something. I found nothing, except the article that Buzzfeed links to, which appears to be nothing more than a rant. Perhaps it's not a rant, I tried to give the benefit of the doubt. I'd still give the benefit of the doubt if I could find any facts to back her statement regarding why she was "Deleting Uber".
I also picture the "reporter" for Buzzfeed lining up to get the comment he got. Reporter: "Hey, you know how in that one article they got the person to quit journalism by posting personal data". Exec "Yeah, sometimes I wonder if we should do that". This is why the missing context is a huge concern.
It's not like Uber actually did send out this persons private information, the whole article based on a statement with no context, and not actions.
Please take your SJW rant to a place like Amsterdam or Germany that has legalized prostitution, watch how fast you get laughed out of the country.
Your rant is only valid in a place like the US that has a prohibition on prostitution. Interestingly "modeling" is legal (see one of the Jenner kids pouring champagne off of their ass), and "advertizing" (see just about every TV add that uses sexual references [sometimes innuendo sometimes direct])is legal, songs can contain direct sexual statements, a barely legal teenager gets on stage and masturbates with a teddy bear and that is national "news", but "prostitution" is.. oh noes, the actual act referenced in all of those other places.
Ever consider why places even the US that have legalized prostitution don't have the issues we normally associate with all of the places where prostitution is illegal, such as Pimps and Drug addict hookers? Maybe you should step off the moral soap box and evaluate your bias.
One funding group alone from the US provided 5 billion dollars to the Euromaiden party, where do you believe the money was spent? While you have to dig for the information, prior to the coup there were several reports of both of those mercenary companies being in Kiev (technically they are the same group with different names).
Initial ballistic reports from investigators was that the same snipers were shooting at both protesters and police. After the coup the investigation was handed over to UK investigators and died after the transition. Cablegate makes this pretty clear, and it's not hard to add 2 and 2 together.
Doxxing Journalists Is Never Acceptable.
I don't think you gave much thought to this comment before you made it.
My point was not that the Uber exec was in the right, I don't even think it was implied. My point was that other people are also wrong. When the kids are all bickering about who did what and why so and so pushed so and so you don't just ground Billy. If you are a fair person you will either ignore the all of the arguments, or you try and sort out which pieces of which stories might be true and correct all of the misdeeds.
TFA's summary appears to attempt to imply misogyny emphasizing that a female reporter was a target, which ignores 75% of the journalists allegedly mentioned by the exec. (see next)
The female journalist discussed made a public accusation: Sarah Lacy, the editor of the Silicon Valley website PandoDaily, a sometimes combative voice inside the industry. Lacy recently accused Uber of “sexism and misogyny.” She wrote that she was deleting her Uber app after BuzzFeed News reported that Uber appeared to be working with a French escort service. “I don’t know how many more signals we need that the company simply doesn’t respect us or prioritize our safety,” she wrote. I can't find any journalism to back the statements of the reporter so can't determine if this is an actual issue. The claim of misogyny and Uber working with a French escort service is valid or an attack? (The article Buzzfeed links is a pissing match, not journalism. Google shows no articles by the person or magazine given my search terms[I tried many].)
The Buzzfeed article is based on off the record comments made at a private dinner. In a statement through an Uber spokeswoman, Michael said: “The remarks attributed to me at a private dinner — borne out of frustration during an informal debate over what I feel is sensationalistic media coverage of the company I am proud to work for — do not reflect my actual views and have no relation to the company’s views or approach. They were wrong no matter the circumstance and I regret them.”
Was the dialogue guided to this point by the reporter? Valid question considering we see the one statement buy the exec and no other portion of the conversation. Context for dialogue is pretty critical.
The person that said these things was also, obviously, a scummy person for saying things.
Let's face it, Uber and Lyft have both been taking a ton of heat from "journalists". Some is legitimate, but the over emphasis of certain events and location "bans" is more related to them not paying the toll to the right gatekeepers, and not systemic problems.
While surely there is value in someone marketing your skills, the problem with IT is that it's damn near impossible to tell if someone is bullshitting or not without talking to them. Even then, it's possible for someone to bullshit quite a bit, basing their interview on lots of scripts and not lots of knowledge. (Unfortunately there are companies out there that teach people to bullshit through interviews).
An "agent" for IT people is often seen as the enemy to other IT people (headhunters and recruiters). Their job is to add to the bullshit to make the candidate a better sell, not cut through the crap and get a person who's skill set matches the needs.
Don't care. Tyrants deserve to be harried.
So you are petitioning the US Government to cause revolts and unrest in one of the most despicable regimes there is right? You know, the country that does not allow women to drive or vote, beheads people for practicing a Religion other than Muslim, has Religious police that will arrest people for not facing Mecca and praying as the Government prescribes, executes thieves, and kills anyone daring to speak out about their Government? Saudi Arabia, just in case you miss it from the description.
If that's the policy the Government is pushing it needs to be unilateral. If it's not a unilateral "anti tyranny" policy it's bias.
Where's the modern day East India company in your analogy? What "mercenary powers" have been given to this company?
Look at companies like Blackwater and The Craft and who they work for and benefit. They are not limited to activity for profit and control in the Middle East, but were also in the Ukraine prior to the revolt.
What I read here is the US did this, the West did that. While simultaneously ignoring that Russia has been behaving worse.
Well, you fail politics 101 because the US is in the West. You also failed to read that in terms of the Ukraine neither East or West is looking at Ukraine's best interests or their people's desire to control their own destiny. US intervention (providing money, guns, and training) and private mercenaries (The Craft, Blackwater) is just as bad as Russia sending in their troops. In fact US intervention methodology is so good that last week Russia's military leadership said that they are considering the same methods because of how much money private firms in the US have been making doing this.
As a Math major I had to take Fortan and C (was quite some time ago obviously) and we never had Windows, let alone "Visual Studio" or Visual C for that matter. It was not until a semester of C was complete that I went and bought Bordland Turbo C/C++. Then Delphi came out, and what a dream that was! Fortran, Pascal and C all available for the back end coding, and GUI builders in C++ for the front end where I did not need to know much about graphics programming.
Then, as with all good competing products Microsoft fucked them over to steal market share and Bordland pretty much vanished. The Microsoft products were inferior in every way and I never wrote another piece of code for a Windows anything (I boycotted Windows, and still do today using their products only where forced.).
Back on point, you can easily write College level classes for C and/or C++. The real problem is that politics keeps people from doing so (threats of revoking educational licenses, etc..). I have tons of books on C, and you could easily learn.
So not only is code.org pushing for more programmers, but now we have people saying "skip college and program"? Do these mega billionaires not realize how obvious their plot is to flood the market with programmers so that they can take even more money from society?
That was funny!!
Giving money to help others makes the world a better place, and is praiseworthy. Complaining about others doing so isn't helping.
Let us take a few billionaires in the US and see what "giving" could result in. Bill Gates with an estimated personal wealth of 67 Billion dollars could give away 66 Billion and still have a billion left (enough to live comfortably for the rest of his life and make his children very wealthy when he dies). That would purchase 660,000 houses for the homeless population in the US valued at 100,000 each. This is more than the amount of homeless people estimated in the US (by approximately 50,000) so would help 50,000 families in poverty as well. Add in Warren Buffet (53B), Larry Ellison(43B), the Koch brothers (34B each), and we have quite a few families that were in poverty in the US that now have a house bought and paid for.
Notice that we don't even touch a guy like David Rockefeller because his net worth is not reported, but estimated at 340 Billion dollars. That wealth alone would purchase 3.4 million houses valued at 100,000 each.
I would fully agree that the plan to purchase all of these people houses would not solve all of the problems, those people would need to get some form of income to pay their property tax every year, maintain the houses, and pay for insurance. The Walton family and all it's members could chip in some of their combined estimate of 130 Billion dollars into a fund to ensure that people can get by during hard times or just prepay the tax and insurance. Michael Bloomberg(27B), Jeff Bezos(25B) and Larry Page(23B) could all chip in as well, to make sure these people get education, medicine, etc.. to ensure that all of these people become productive members of society.
The guy that can't afford giving 60.00 without missing a phone bill would probably not complain if these stories were not presented as though these billionaires were making a sacrifice. Sure, it's nice that they give something to causes but the billionaires also seem to only give what they can benefit from giving. The issue is in the presentation, and it should be expected that people that do give what they can afford to the donation buckets have some resentment.
"Whether it's winning yacht races, assembling the best computer science faculty, or even dominating high school basketball, billionaires like to win. Which may help explain why three tech billionaires — Code.org backers (and FWD.us founders) Mark Zuckerberg, VC John Doerr, and Sean Parker — stepped up to the plate and helped out Code.org's once-anemic Hour of Code Indiegogo crowdfunding project with $500k
I guess they could have bragged about how great their skiing abilities are compared to the Urban crowd that can't afford 100K worth of gear and 1,000/day lift fees to make things look worse.
Here is a novel idea, read the book for yourself and see what it says regarding education. After you do this, get back to me and we can discuss whether or not Socrates was correct regarding public education.
I never stated plumbing was a lucrative job, I don't even think I hinted at it. Automation has it's place, but many things are not better given our current ability to automate.
These wealthy tech billionaires see the writing on the wall and are trying to help equip the masses to be more relevant in tomorrow's job market.
These wealthy billionaires did not become wealthy billionaires by altruism, sorry. I appreciate your opinion, but I don't believe for one second that they have societies best interest in mind with this push. I consider that they read the reference I provided and took the message of Sophistry and Machiavelli instead of altruism. I could be wrong, but you would have to provide with evidence and we would have to debate case by case.
There is a great portion of my favorite book on Political thought regarding wages and the Artisan. Socrates points out that once a person in society receives ample money for a project they no longer have incentive to do future work. Socrates continues stating that this is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the person with the wealth is now free to meddle in the affairs of everybody else in society. That meddling is almost never in societies interests, but that person or the person's close friends and associates, so that they gain further control of society and have more stuff than everyone else.
That book in case you are interested is Plato's "The Republic".
The whole "everyone should code" argument is foolish. Society needs plumbers, welders, architects, accountants, doctors, physicists, line workers, and every other job there is. As society has demand for jobs the wages should go up, which draws people into the needed jobs. Since coders are in demand and receive good wages for their work, it seems at least some of this push is to artificially reduce the wages by flooding the market. And lets face it, there are not a whole lot of decent paying middle class jobs left in the US any longer.
Even if that ... "news" .... were available from a reputable source, George Soros isn't an arm of the US government.
Did you note above what I said about cherry picking? Instead of cherry picking a fragment of the statement why not do the work and find out which groups were funding the Euromaidens and how many were US Agencies? You want me to treat you as a person that is not a shill, do the work. All you have to do is follow the instruction and read the returns. Make sure you review the results fairly, and don't cherry pick only pieces of what's return to back your belief.
What do you think the Constitution has to say about any of that? You dislike assisting other countries in building democratic institutions?
First, the Constitution defines declarations of war clearly, Congress must declare war. This new phenomenon of "executive order" wars are not defined in the Constitution. In fact every President that has done so has been threatened with impeachment, including LBJ and both of the Bush presidents.
Second, there are no Constitutional provisions claiming we must help (fund, arm, train, etc..) [insert country] build a democracy in any way shape or form.
Nonsense. What country has IBM or General Motors conquered and ruled? None.
The Dole Pineapple Wars, etc.. etc...
It was stated very plainly that both sides are dishonest. Looks like CF found some sock puppet assistance since his personal attack of me has been moderated "insightful" and my post moderated "flame bait".
I could have probably presented my case more evenly, there is a bit of bias there. At the same time, we already get the US Spin on the issues from just about every source so it was not intentional bias but highlighting the other side of the debate.
Putin has troops in Ukraine trying to take territory from Ukraine, NATO doesn't. But if you think that "cablegate" is the equivalent, please do point out how? It seems to me that your "abhorrence" of Putin doesn't seem to go so far as to opposition to open aggression.
Over 5 billion dollars was provided to the Euromaiden movement prior to the "revolt" by the US Government and US think-tank groups. At least some of the new leaders had, and have, affiliation with Nazi parties. They walk around with ski masks and AK 47s in Government offices and US media announces how "Free" the Ukrainian people are after this revolt. Regular ole people have been massacred all over the Ukraine on both sides, simply for having a different view on what would be best for the Ukraine.
Neither East or West argues for Ukrainian autonomy. Russia want's them in their trade block, the West want's them to be members of the European Union trade block. The People of the Ukraine are split, and we are told that both sides with guns and power know the answer. Puh-leaze. In US media, we only see the pro West point of view. Everything else is blamed on Russia, even though as the article above demonstrates Russian involvement is not the only problem. Nor would I say it's the major problem, there are two sides equally to blame.
You are trying to draw a distinction between providing trained solders with guns as a private army and providing the money, guns, and training to civilians for a private army. There is very little distinction to be had, so stop trying to amplify it as if it matters.
Now lets look at some recent history regarding how good US policy in funding these colored revolutions has been. Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, they are all a horrible mess. If you take the argument "well those guys were horrible dictators" I ask why you don't put Saudi Arabia on the same hit list as Libya? Turkey? Qatar? DPRK? In other words, the policies are not uniform so can't be just about "horrible dictators". Hell, at least we can excuse our lack of action in DPRK as a fear of Chinese retaliation, we have no excuse in the Middle East with countries like Saudi Arabia.
Because this is not a black and white issue? Whether or not US involvement is morally correct aside, lets look at a few facts regarding US involvement in the Middle East and Eastern block including the Ukraine. USAID and numerous other US agencies pumped a lot of money into these countries for the various revolutions. 5 Billion dollars was dumped into the Euromaiden coffers prior to the "revolt" (Search "Soros spending on Euromaidan" and you can read reports). Similar reports exist for every recent "revolt" in Europe and the Middle East, and reports from Asia show similar attempts to "influence" revolts in China. We also have western governments openly and actively backing some revolutionaries. The West bombed Gaddafi's troops in Libya, are arming and training rebels in Syria, etc...
Again, keep morality out of the equation for now. If you were the leader of Russia or China and you saw this happening, would you not read this as a direct attack against you? If you were Russia or China and you started sending in your own "advisers" and/or bombing rebels do you see this as self defense or aggression? If you were on the other side of the border you are going to view your actions as self defense.
So the morality question is subjective. Personally I dislike the West's method of imperialism. It's a round about method of invade and conquer without spending troops and bypasses the Constitution. I further don't agree that this is the "best" way to improve our own Country, let alone the rest of the World.
What we should be, is a role model that people try and adopt. Our Republic is supposed to represent all of the people of the Nation and function so well that everyone tries to mimic it in every country across the globe.
What we have today is more reminiscent of the East India company. Executive orders for "war" and private funding has given mercenary powers to big business bypassing Constitutional requirements for declaration of war by Congress and the People.
The anomalies I pointed are ordered for the specific reason. In my opinion, the most obvious and interesting theory is that Putin's plane was near the same air space close to the same time as MH17 (something I have not seen mentioned in US media or in this thread). This could have been a simple, yet tragic, case of mistaken identity.
We don't have the reports from the investigators, and may never have their reports. Looking at an event like MH17 does require investigating the benefits of shooting down a plane. Lacking evidence all theories are valid as each other.
Like it or not, dialogue is a two way street. I have tried, often pretty hard, to have a rational dialogue with you. With you, it's a one way street and you are the only one on the street. You can't, and never have said "hmm, I never thought of it that way" or "I never realized other people perceive things that way", to you it's what the establishment said. You consistently cherry pick fragments of fact to back your pro establishment opinion. You ignore facts that don't back the pro establishment opinion and name call "conspiracy" anything you dislike.
I made the statement above that both sides are being dishonest about the Ukraine, not the first time I have made that statement ,and your response is to name call and attack that statement. You called me an "apologist" and my perspective "biased", then you want to complain about being called a shill and troll?
The two historical post examples you provide are no exception. In both cases read the whole goddamn thread instead of cherry picking a fragment. Read what is written by you and the people you respond to from top to bottom, because that is a conversation. Make sure you take note of the moderation and who is moderated a "troll" in both threads.
In the first example you pointed to a particular response from a person who claims that anyone investigating what Architects and Engineers say about the government report on the 9/11 attacks is "dishonoring the dead". They are entitled to their opinion, but I find the facts laid out in ae911 reports to be relevant and, well, facts. His opinion does not make facts go away, and does not make the Government's reports magically valid. His defense is not explaining how the Architects and Engineers are wrong, but to attack my signature and label the subject "conspiracy theory". That should sound very familiar to you, since you do the same thing often enough.
Most importantly, look at your posts and what you responded to in that whole thread. The first post is an active military person who hopes that things don't escalate in Syria because they are on active duty, to which you respond "Sniff..sniff..?? ... sniff..sniff....... smells like a troll to me.". Someone else, over a year ago, provides their opinion of you as "It's not - cold fjord is our resident boot-licking statist, and you just stepped on his dick with your honest account."
In the second example you provided, again, read the damn thread. I stated that there are many abuses that should have officials in jail. Such as the establishment telling the police to attack journalists. Now look at your answer, which is paraphrased as "You support people killing cops". Look at the moderation on the thread, who is a troll and who is insightful? I did not moderate the thread, I provided a fact based opinion which you attacked. When I showed you that your response was nothing but a stream of fallacies you retort with CNN opinion pieces. This is a trend, not a one time event (see the thread we are currently in).
I don't post pro establishment nonsense, because much of it is nonsense. People can get the pro establishment opinion by turning on any "news" station in the US. I don't believe what I'm told, I question what I'm told. You consistently attack anyone that questions the establishment, often with very elaborate fallacies trying to mask the attack and belittle the people you are responding to. Then again, you frequently attack people openly and don't try to hide it.
You brought the bias on yourself. Contrary to your invalid attempt to diminish the amount of people that perceive you as a shill, look at how your posts are consistently moderated negatively. That is because of _YOUR_ method of attacking people, your lack of ability to hold courteous dialogue, your policy of cherry picking facts you like and negatively labeling facts you don't like. Either change your mode of dialogue, which would change people's perception of you, or expect that you will be ignored and labeled.
Typically conspiracy charges crosses from free speech to criminal when someone takes steps further than talking about it. For instance, if you and a friend were sitting around smoking a joint talking about how easy it would be to rob a bank, it would be free speech. If you or your friend started staking banks out and purchasing supplies you discussed, it can become a criminal conspiracy whether you actually robbed the bank or not.
I think you are making the waters too muddy. "Speech" is not the part of this that's illegal. I can tell my friend "I want to rob a bank" all day long and there is nothing illegal in saying it. The Government, even if they had a recording of me saying so, has no grounds for prosecution. Saying something is not a "conspiracy", and it's not illegal.
In your example, smoking pot may be the illegal part so yup you are going to be in trouble. Drafting up the blue prints for how to rob the bank, buying the weapons, writing the note for the teller, those are things that would be "conspiracy". Talking alone is not a conspiracy, and should not be ever considered a conspiracy. Not that we are still practicing the Law as we should, or even as we did 30 years ago, but there is supposed to be "mens rea" in any conviction. Meaning, without a motive there can be no crime. So if there is a crime, such as your conspiracy, you can use the discussion as the motive. Not the other way around.
So you are claiming that the former cop was teaching these guys to yell "FIRE!" in a theater? Throw bottles off of a building? Nothing you said relates to the first amendment, so I'm confused. He would also have to have some form of authority to make them yell "Fire" in a theater or throw bottles off a building.
Teaching someone to lie is something College Professors do in rhetoric and debate classes, are they all going to go to jail too? Can we please jail all of the politicians that have been caught lying too (Clapper, Bush, Obama, Gruber, Lerner - I could go on all day)? They have had a much worse impact on society than this guy, who is trying to teach society that the Polygraph is nothing more than a tarot card system used by law enforcement to gain convictions.
On that last part, I'm sure you are aware that if you refuse to take a Polygraph the prosecutor can, and will, announce to the Jury that you refused to take the Polygraph. If you agree to take the Polygraph and fail, they will use the results to try and convince the Jury you are guilty (hey, you agreed). The only time the Polygraph does not matter is when you take it and pass. In other words: Even though it's not legal to force someone to take it the polygraph theresults and action are both admissible in court, and only in a way that favors prosecution.
You can repeat the same statement as many times as you wish, that does not make it "illegal speech".
Elderly, women, and children are traditionally evacuated from war zones, not drafted in to fight. This does not imply that one life is worth more than another, and is not intended to. The point was that the people killed were not a threat, where military aged men could have legitimately been portrayed as a threat.
I appreciate the defense. Personally I usually ignore the troll you just responded to. This person has a history of ignoring facts and painting the establishment's opinion as factual. Not just on this topic, but every political topic. Clapper didn't lie, Feinstein never called Snowden a traitor (but of course they will tell you Snowden was a traitor who deserves to die), Saddam really did have WMDs and was buying yellow cake, etc.... To them, the establishment opinion is fact and any contrary information is either "conspiracy theory" or ignored.
My conclusion is that this person is a paid shill. I don't believe anyone can consistently be so blind to facts and pro administration. I can say with certainty that I have seen at least a dozen formulate the same opinion as myself. You can read the persons post history and draw your own conclusion.
I'm just giving fair warning.
Please ask someone with approximately a 3rd grade education how to define the phrase "do not expect". I'll give you a hint, it does not translate to a refusal.
After the third grader helps you with the meaning of the phrase, I would appreciate if came and apologized out of courtesy. Since you were trolling, I have no such expectation but it would be appreciated.