Holistic dumbass. See what that word means. Working definition: Not cherry picking one item out of a list of 6, first providing justification that it's okay to ridicule and attack kids, then ignoring the remainder of the list to and still denying the premise.
So not only are you a despicable person who is okay with kids being targeted, you also fail at basic logic and reason. I'd be willing to bet that your IQ is not high enough to enter the Military. Or you would qualify as a Sandbag.
The conclusion that companies won't implement automation if labor is cheap enough has some validity. The problem with the conclusion is that the cost of labor is only one of at least a dozen factors to consider.
There is a similar problem when discussing minimum wages in general, let alone increases in minimum wage. If profit margins are too low businesses lay off people, which often reduces their overall business. Consider a Grocery store that can't hire enough people and customers end up leaving before making a purchase, often leaving items in carts. Already short labor is needed to restock items and customer service goes down further, resulting in permanent lost of customers over a short time.
The alternative is to raise prices so that all consumers end up paying more, which results less disposable income in the economy to go toward other businesses. People purchase less clothes, less music, fewer cars, etc.. etc... (FWIW I grew up in poverty so know what you skip out on or get by questionable means when money is not available)
Contrary to what certain political figures want you to believe, it's not like the majority of businesses and business owners are like Scrooge McDuck rolling in the dough laughing at the peons. In fact those companies are an extreme minority.
We suffer with a lack of consideration and dialogue because of half truths.
OK, then let's be like Germany, where higher education is FREE.
Higher Education is "Free" from financial responsibility _IF_ you meed a stringent set of criteria. Primarily a high GPA for the duration of your education, but other factors can be included. You can still go to higher education _AT_COST_ if you don't have the requirements, but "FREE" certainly is a dishonest presentation.
The engagement would only be short with a bad developer. The loop should go: "oh I want you to.." *pause* "please wait while updating user profile for your new level of interaction" *pause* "sorry about that. Oh you are so strong..."
Traditionally children have been omitted from harassment, ridicule, attacks, and quite frankly even favorable reporting by media. There was outrage that Media reported a Bush daughter smoking pot, and virtually 0 reporting on anything Obama's children did good or bad.
Ignoring actual history and claiming what you wish instead of what is real is poor form.
And lets be frank about the point I addressed. These constant attacks by Leftists, Democrats, and even RINOs who disagree with the president _ARE_ Police State tactics. It is not only the President and his family under attack, it is anyone who does not side with the ultra-left. Maher ridiculing a 9 year old is a great example, but we can also look at Google publicly ridiculing a person and firing them for "wrong" opinions based on scientific fact.
Facts have become so dangerous that if you discuss them you are targeted by media, politicians, and corporations for discussing them. These are frightening times, and unless we get issues out in the open they can't improve.
If you are not mentally retarded you are a despicable human. The 9 year old girl ridiculed by Bill Maher didn't commit any crime, they simply wrote a letter to the President. The 9 year old son of Donald Trump committed no crimes, he is bashed and ridiculed by media propagandists for being the son of a guy they disagree with politically. Those acts began occurring long before the act you attempt to use as justification.
I never implied a damn thing, you are using more despicable justification for going after the guys daughter and her own business. Simply because, as with the attacks on 9 year old kids, she is the daughter of a person they dislike politically.
Those are police state tactics used in tyrannical regimes and banana republics. You attempt justification is because you are deluded enough to believe that the people doing it are on your side.
My outrage and points would be valid and not change regardless of who's in power. I'm doubtful that you would be the same based on your justification of evil acts.
An adult talking smack to a 9 year old? Really, you see nothing wrong with that? I don't have anything against a boycott, but as a weapon against someone's dad?
I notice the incredible lack of citations and facts. I can not prove a negative, so if you disagree provide the proof. I'm happy to read and educate myself. Warning: Chuck Schumer and John McCain don't count for validation, nor does a WAPO article making a claim on behalf of "anonymous" sources. Further: Comey, Clapper, Rodgers, and several others have testified. Read the testimony yourself, I did.
So there are no actors on the far left rioting and smashing things on a pretty regular basis since the last election? There are no far left movements running boycott campaigns against the Trump family? Nobody on the left talking smack about a 9 year old? There were no paid provocateurs at rallies and events? The IRS didn't target people on the right, and all the people from the last administration have faced justice for wrong doing?
I don't care about your feelings, I care about facts. Facts back my point, that these are police state tactics used right in the open against US people that some on the left dislike.
We can't argue policy, which there are many I disagree with Trump about. Why? Because there is so much shit in the pool that we don't want to swim!
And what do you call persecuting a person's whole family because their dad does not agree with you politically? Seems okay that people on the left are doing this to Trump's family, including people threatening to go after a 9 year old kid.
What do you call silencing speech you dislike? Seems okay for the people on the far left to do this using violence, intimidation, and blackmail.
What do you call media pouring out a constant stream of propaganda to harm people on the other side of them politically? Again, seems okay for the people on the far left to do this all the time.
What do you call paying "protestors" to show up at rallies and start fights because you disagree with someone's politics?
What do you call using political power to ignore crimes of people on your side? How about using Government agencies to target people you disagree with politically?
Let us really talk about police state tactics and who is using them. Strangely none of those things are directed by, condoned by, or sanctioned by the current Administration or President.
Equal protection vs free exercise of religion: if it's a matter of religious belief to discriminate against others (for example, refuse to hire homosexuals), these two rights are in competition
No competition at all, you are just repeating talking points on this one. The Supreme Court has ruled on numerous cases where a person's Religious beliefs are protected and the Government can not force them to support causes that go against their beliefs. See the Military and Religious Pacifists from all sorts of Religions as a start. The "Wedding Cake" issue is another that the Supreme Court is slated to hear which will protect the baker and not force someone to act against their beliefs. (A bit of Crystal ball reading, but precedent exists with things like Insurance ruled on relatively recently.). It is important to remember that Christians were the open target (constantly attacked by the marxist movements in the US) but Muslims would be subject to the same ruling. A group much more inclined to refuse to service Homosexuals due to Religious beliefs.
Right to a fair trial vs free speech: When there is widespread discussion and speculation about an accused criminal, this often affects the ability to have a fair trial due to the pollution of the juror pool.
That is just dumb because you are conflating very separate issues. It is society's responsibility to police media outlets who are supposed to live and die by people purchasing their service. The Government is not supposed to be authoritarian and do everything for society. Society is supposed to be responsible and accountable for themselves as well. When society stops performing it's function, Representative Governments stop performing theirs. (citation: all of history)
Now if you wish to state that Society has allowed Media and "News" to become a whole bunch of fuck-ups controlled by a monopoly, I'd agree. I don't see much in terms of public demands to break up these media conglomerates.
There is no contradiction at all. You should attempt to learn the distinction between an exception and general.
Even the intellectually challenged should be able to determine that not everything is protected by copyright, and not everything can be protected under copyright.
Just like the Federal Government has no powers except for what is provisioned in the US Constitution (if we follow the law anyway). That doesn't mean that if it's not described the Federal Government can do it, it means that the Federal Government is limited in power.
I read the Constitution hundreds of times and there are no such conflicts that I can find. Where conflicts tend to exist is when people manipulate wording and message instead of reading the actual words.
I would have expected this plea regardless of facts. I can't wait to read more on this as it becomes available. Right now, we have speculation on one side and little except the indictment on the other.
Needs way more information to start making informed opinions.
You do realize that there has been no independent verification of any data in the paid-for report right? No law enforcement agency, not the FBI (not in CIAs jurisdiction), has been allowed to review any information used to create the report.
Saying that the report looks right assumes that the facts are correct, and that is where law enforcement agencies have no such verification. That is why the FBI requested, and to my knowledge still has an open request, to examine the DNC servers.
So again, could they be right? Sure but I want to see the independent verification. Politicians are nasty people and there has been so much illegal and immoral activity exposed over the last few years that we should all be demanding independent verification.
My personal take is that none of the evidence is sufficient proof of the "hacker's" identity, but whoever did it was quite lazy. If they were trying to hide their fingerprints, they did a singularly bad job of it. That by itself leans me slightly toward the 'Russia' theory: The DNC would have a lot more to lose if their supposed conspiracy (complete with murder) was unmasked, while Russia would lose nothing but a little international respect they didn't have to begin with.
The DNC has not been nearly as good as they think they are in terms of hiding their actions. They have gotten away with so much because of people in political positions than being clever. Lynch on the tarmac, Comey's indictment and subsequent dismissal of all charges, DWS email chain/IT guy, Abedin/Wiener, Rice/Holder etc... using easy to track fake names in communications, Clinton's Server, Benghazi, Holder's Fast&Furious, etc...
The public is outraged because so much has been outed with no criminal action against perpetrators, not because they have been so clever at hiding things.
Your points are well taken. The fundamental facts of the whole Russia hacked the DNC narrative have never been questioned or put under scrutiny. There are many reasons for this, the primary one being that most of the media is a mouthpiece for the Democratic party. One can laugh at that, but this is the sort of shit that happens when a democracy does not have a free and fair press.
Actually the narrative is questioned, which is why you see the allegation come out and vanish almost as quickly. The narrative will be repeated and repeated until people get tired of pushing back and we end up with white washed history.
Repeat a lie long enough and loud enough and eventually the people will believe it. Not an exact quote of Goebbels, Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, Pot, Mao, etc.. but the basic premise of their propaganda machines.
Strong Analysis supporting this claim. It was an inside leak. This is pretty close to damning evidence. Compare it to the evidence supplied by the Democratic Leadership in charge of the IC pinning it on Russia.
I don't support Russia, or anything associated with the authoritarian regime of Russia and it's leadership. That does not mean I simply accept allegations that "Russia did it" for everything the Democrats and Democratic Party's praetorian guard media wants to claim either.
Is it possible that Russia had something to do with the breach? Sure, it's also possible an insider fed up with the corruption is responsible for the breach. I have yet to see compelling evidence pinning any of these breaches on Russia. I have yet to see anything in the way of anecdotal evidence that would lead to a compelling "Russia did it" either. What I have seen is a whole lot of claims which don't stand up to basic scrutiny.
We have a paid-for DNC report from a private company making the claim being repeated by Democratic politicians as "fact". Yet a request by the FBI to investigate the server being denied by the DNC. If they are so sure, why didn't they let the largest Federal Law Enforcement agency investigate for validation?
Maybe it was Russia. Show us the evidence (not an allegation made by a company paid by the DNC) and I'll be right on board with bitching about them nasty Russians. There is enough dirty with the DNC and politicians from the last administration that people _should_ be skeptical until such evidence is provided. (If you don't think anything is dirty, you are not even trying and rational discourse is impossible. Colluding to oust Sanders, Lynch on the tarmac, Comey's actions, Huma Abedin, and Wasserman Shultz are easy, but not only subjects for you to read about. )
A Harvard representative confirmed to Business Insider that Damore was enrolled in the program but hadn't completed the doctorate, though he did receive a master's degree in biology. The representative did not say why Damore left the program, but it's not uncommon for people to pause their doctoral studies.
Especially when thinking they can start to settle into a new career with a big company like Google. He probably thought, like many, that working for Google would be great! The brightest minds must revere Science and love dialogue and debate, right?
I'm guessing his head is still spinning a bit from cognitive dissonance.
Google Execs came out the same day and claimed the paper was sexist, discriminatory, and unacceptable. Right before they fired the guy. I'm sure you will cherry pick (as usual) and claim it's not wrong because they didn't use all the terminology I typed. However, look at other events where the Marxist/SJW crowd prevents speech and dialogue with all of the names I mentioned.
So Jews complaining about the gas chamber should not have, because they didn't have a solution. Russians complaining about Gulags didn't have a solution either. I guess they deserved what they got for complaining.
Finding as solution to a problem _REQUIRES_ that the problem gets accepted as valid!
And before you claim my example is extreme, I admit it is. At the same time, I have a son growing up who feels overwhelmed by a society which does not give a shit about him or his accomplishments because he's male.
Oh yeah, like me he's tough and can cope. But why is it that we have to cope with discrimination when that is the problem allegedly being addressed? Oh yeah, you don't get the cultural Marxism at all.
Slashdot Mirror
And your link to such a conclusion is where exactly? Once again, you provide nothing to support your assertion.
Holistic dumbass. See what that word means. Working definition: Not cherry picking one item out of a list of 6, first providing justification that it's okay to ridicule and attack kids, then ignoring the remainder of the list to and still denying the premise.
So not only are you a despicable person who is okay with kids being targeted, you also fail at basic logic and reason. I'd be willing to bet that your IQ is not high enough to enter the Military. Or you would qualify as a Sandbag.
The conclusion that companies won't implement automation if labor is cheap enough has some validity. The problem with the conclusion is that the cost of labor is only one of at least a dozen factors to consider.
There is a similar problem when discussing minimum wages in general, let alone increases in minimum wage. If profit margins are too low businesses lay off people, which often reduces their overall business. Consider a Grocery store that can't hire enough people and customers end up leaving before making a purchase, often leaving items in carts. Already short labor is needed to restock items and customer service goes down further, resulting in permanent lost of customers over a short time.
The alternative is to raise prices so that all consumers end up paying more, which results less disposable income in the economy to go toward other businesses. People purchase less clothes, less music, fewer cars, etc.. etc... (FWIW I grew up in poverty so know what you skip out on or get by questionable means when money is not available)
Contrary to what certain political figures want you to believe, it's not like the majority of businesses and business owners are like Scrooge McDuck rolling in the dough laughing at the peons. In fact those companies are an extreme minority.
We suffer with a lack of consideration and dialogue because of half truths.
OK, then let's be like Germany, where higher education is FREE.
Higher Education is "Free" from financial responsibility _IF_ you meed a stringent set of criteria. Primarily a high GPA for the duration of your education, but other factors can be included. You can still go to higher education _AT_COST_ if you don't have the requirements, but "FREE" certainly is a dishonest presentation.
The engagement would only be short with a bad developer. The loop should go: "oh I want you to.." *pause* "please wait while updating user profile for your new level of interaction" *pause* "sorry about that. Oh you are so strong..."
Traditionally children have been omitted from harassment, ridicule, attacks, and quite frankly even favorable reporting by media. There was outrage that Media reported a Bush daughter smoking pot, and virtually 0 reporting on anything Obama's children did good or bad.
Ignoring actual history and claiming what you wish instead of what is real is poor form.
And lets be frank about the point I addressed. These constant attacks by Leftists, Democrats, and even RINOs who disagree with the president _ARE_ Police State tactics. It is not only the President and his family under attack, it is anyone who does not side with the ultra-left. Maher ridiculing a 9 year old is a great example, but we can also look at Google publicly ridiculing a person and firing them for "wrong" opinions based on scientific fact.
Facts have become so dangerous that if you discuss them you are targeted by media, politicians, and corporations for discussing them. These are frightening times, and unless we get issues out in the open they can't improve.
If you are not mentally retarded you are a despicable human. The 9 year old girl ridiculed by Bill Maher didn't commit any crime, they simply wrote a letter to the President. The 9 year old son of Donald Trump committed no crimes, he is bashed and ridiculed by media propagandists for being the son of a guy they disagree with politically. Those acts began occurring long before the act you attempt to use as justification.
I never implied a damn thing, you are using more despicable justification for going after the guys daughter and her own business. Simply because, as with the attacks on 9 year old kids, she is the daughter of a person they dislike politically.
Those are police state tactics used in tyrannical regimes and banana republics. You attempt justification is because you are deluded enough to believe that the people doing it are on your side.
My outrage and points would be valid and not change regardless of who's in power. I'm doubtful that you would be the same based on your justification of evil acts.
An adult talking smack to a 9 year old? Really, you see nothing wrong with that? I don't have anything against a boycott, but as a weapon against someone's dad?
I notice the incredible lack of citations and facts. I can not prove a negative, so if you disagree provide the proof. I'm happy to read and educate myself. Warning: Chuck Schumer and John McCain don't count for validation, nor does a WAPO article making a claim on behalf of "anonymous" sources. Further: Comey, Clapper, Rodgers, and several others have testified. Read the testimony yourself, I did.
So there are no actors on the far left rioting and smashing things on a pretty regular basis since the last election? There are no far left movements running boycott campaigns against the Trump family? Nobody on the left talking smack about a 9 year old? There were no paid provocateurs at rallies and events? The IRS didn't target people on the right, and all the people from the last administration have faced justice for wrong doing?
I don't care about your feelings, I care about facts. Facts back my point, that these are police state tactics used right in the open against US people that some on the left dislike.
We can't argue policy, which there are many I disagree with Trump about. Why? Because there is so much shit in the pool that we don't want to swim!
Downmod anything honest that harms _your_ side. Disgusting problem on /. and growing worse.
And what do you call persecuting a person's whole family because their dad does not agree with you politically? Seems okay that people on the left are doing this to Trump's family, including people threatening to go after a 9 year old kid.
What do you call silencing speech you dislike? Seems okay for the people on the far left to do this using violence, intimidation, and blackmail.
What do you call media pouring out a constant stream of propaganda to harm people on the other side of them politically? Again, seems okay for the people on the far left to do this all the time.
What do you call paying "protestors" to show up at rallies and start fights because you disagree with someone's politics?
What do you call using political power to ignore crimes of people on your side? How about using Government agencies to target people you disagree with politically?
Let us really talk about police state tactics and who is using them. Strangely none of those things are directed by, condoned by, or sanctioned by the current Administration or President.
Equal protection vs free exercise of religion: if it's a matter of religious belief to discriminate against others (for example, refuse to hire homosexuals), these two rights are in competition
No competition at all, you are just repeating talking points on this one. The Supreme Court has ruled on numerous cases where a person's Religious beliefs are protected and the Government can not force them to support causes that go against their beliefs. See the Military and Religious Pacifists from all sorts of Religions as a start. The "Wedding Cake" issue is another that the Supreme Court is slated to hear which will protect the baker and not force someone to act against their beliefs. (A bit of Crystal ball reading, but precedent exists with things like Insurance ruled on relatively recently.). It is important to remember that Christians were the open target (constantly attacked by the marxist movements in the US) but Muslims would be subject to the same ruling. A group much more inclined to refuse to service Homosexuals due to Religious beliefs.
Right to a fair trial vs free speech: When there is widespread discussion and speculation about an accused criminal, this often affects the ability to have a fair trial due to the pollution of the juror pool.
That is just dumb because you are conflating very separate issues. It is society's responsibility to police media outlets who are supposed to live and die by people purchasing their service. The Government is not supposed to be authoritarian and do everything for society. Society is supposed to be responsible and accountable for themselves as well. When society stops performing it's function, Representative Governments stop performing theirs. (citation: all of history)
Now if you wish to state that Society has allowed Media and "News" to become a whole bunch of fuck-ups controlled by a monopoly, I'd agree. I don't see much in terms of public demands to break up these media conglomerates.
There is no contradiction at all. You should attempt to learn the distinction between an exception and general.
Even the intellectually challenged should be able to determine that not everything is protected by copyright, and not everything can be protected under copyright.
Just like the Federal Government has no powers except for what is provisioned in the US Constitution (if we follow the law anyway). That doesn't mean that if it's not described the Federal Government can do it, it means that the Federal Government is limited in power.
I read the Constitution hundreds of times and there are no such conflicts that I can find. Where conflicts tend to exist is when people manipulate wording and message instead of reading the actual words.
Show me in text where there is such a conflict.
I would have expected this plea regardless of facts. I can't wait to read more on this as it becomes available. Right now, we have speculation on one side and little except the indictment on the other.
Needs way more information to start making informed opinions.
You do realize that there has been no independent verification of any data in the paid-for report right? No law enforcement agency, not the FBI (not in CIAs jurisdiction), has been allowed to review any information used to create the report.
Saying that the report looks right assumes that the facts are correct, and that is where law enforcement agencies have no such verification. That is why the FBI requested, and to my knowledge still has an open request, to examine the DNC servers.
So again, could they be right? Sure but I want to see the independent verification. Politicians are nasty people and there has been so much illegal and immoral activity exposed over the last few years that we should all be demanding independent verification.
My personal take is that none of the evidence is sufficient proof of the "hacker's" identity, but whoever did it was quite lazy. If they were trying to hide their fingerprints, they did a singularly bad job of it. That by itself leans me slightly toward the 'Russia' theory: The DNC would have a lot more to lose if their supposed conspiracy (complete with murder) was unmasked, while Russia would lose nothing but a little international respect they didn't have to begin with.
The DNC has not been nearly as good as they think they are in terms of hiding their actions. They have gotten away with so much because of people in political positions than being clever. Lynch on the tarmac, Comey's indictment and subsequent dismissal of all charges, DWS email chain/IT guy, Abedin/Wiener, Rice/Holder etc... using easy to track fake names in communications, Clinton's Server, Benghazi, Holder's Fast&Furious, etc...
The public is outraged because so much has been outed with no criminal action against perpetrators, not because they have been so clever at hiding things.
Your points are well taken. The fundamental facts of the whole Russia hacked the DNC narrative have never been questioned or put under scrutiny. There are many reasons for this, the primary one being that most of the media is a mouthpiece for the Democratic party. One can laugh at that, but this is the sort of shit that happens when a democracy does not have a free and fair press.
Actually the narrative is questioned, which is why you see the allegation come out and vanish almost as quickly. The narrative will be repeated and repeated until people get tired of pushing back and we end up with white washed history.
Repeat a lie long enough and loud enough and eventually the people will believe it. Not an exact quote of Goebbels, Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, Pot, Mao, etc.. but the basic premise of their propaganda machines.
Strong Analysis supporting this claim. It was an inside leak. This is pretty close to damning evidence. Compare it to the evidence supplied by the Democratic Leadership in charge of the IC pinning it on Russia.
I don't support Russia, or anything associated with the authoritarian regime of Russia and it's leadership. That does not mean I simply accept allegations that "Russia did it" for everything the Democrats and Democratic Party's praetorian guard media wants to claim either.
Is it possible that Russia had something to do with the breach? Sure, it's also possible an insider fed up with the corruption is responsible for the breach. I have yet to see compelling evidence pinning any of these breaches on Russia. I have yet to see anything in the way of anecdotal evidence that would lead to a compelling "Russia did it" either. What I have seen is a whole lot of claims which don't stand up to basic scrutiny.
We have a paid-for DNC report from a private company making the claim being repeated by Democratic politicians as "fact". Yet a request by the FBI to investigate the server being denied by the DNC. If they are so sure, why didn't they let the largest Federal Law Enforcement agency investigate for validation?
Maybe it was Russia. Show us the evidence (not an allegation made by a company paid by the DNC) and I'll be right on board with bitching about them nasty Russians. There is enough dirty with the DNC and politicians from the last administration that people _should_ be skeptical until such evidence is provided. (If you don't think anything is dirty, you are not even trying and rational discourse is impossible. Colluding to oust Sanders, Lynch on the tarmac, Comey's actions, Huma Abedin, and Wasserman Shultz are easy, but not only subjects for you to read about. )
"appeal to a lack of authority"
Would be an appeal to ignorance.
A Harvard representative confirmed to Business Insider that Damore was enrolled in the program but hadn't completed the doctorate, though he did receive a master's degree in biology. The representative did not say why Damore left the program, but it's not uncommon for people to pause their doctoral studies.
Especially when thinking they can start to settle into a new career with a big company like Google. He probably thought, like many, that working for Google would be great! The brightest minds must revere Science and love dialogue and debate, right?
I'm guessing his head is still spinning a bit from cognitive dissonance.
No, but that does not prevent her worry as a mother.
What you are claiming is since there is some risk we should accept all risk.
Simply brilliant comrade!
Google Execs came out the same day and claimed the paper was sexist, discriminatory, and unacceptable. Right before they fired the guy. I'm sure you will cherry pick (as usual) and claim it's not wrong because they didn't use all the terminology I typed. However, look at other events where the Marxist/SJW crowd prevents speech and dialogue with all of the names I mentioned.
So Jews complaining about the gas chamber should not have, because they didn't have a solution. Russians complaining about Gulags didn't have a solution either. I guess they deserved what they got for complaining.
Finding as solution to a problem _REQUIRES_ that the problem gets accepted as valid!
And before you claim my example is extreme, I admit it is. At the same time, I have a son growing up who feels overwhelmed by a society which does not give a shit about him or his accomplishments because he's male.
Oh yeah, like me he's tough and can cope. But why is it that we have to cope with discrimination when that is the problem allegedly being addressed? Oh yeah, you don't get the cultural Marxism at all.