Don't think one set of facts will change the original emotionally generated stories. The common view is that facts don't matter, it's what people "feel" that counts.
Many young people are not buying houses, and many are not able to afford rent on their own. The amount of adults living with parents today has skyrocketed from 30 years ago. The amount of renters and shared rent agreements has also skyrocketed in that same time.
College loans of 35K are certainly not high, but if you don't make enough money to live on you are going to pay the minimums.
Let me help _YOU_ out, and show you the level of ignorance you are displaying. How workers died building railroads? How many died building the Pyramids? How many peasants died to feed the nobles? How many died building sky scrapers? How many impoverished people died mining coal? How many poor people died as soldiers on any side of a war? The overwhelming majority of those deaths were preventable if people were concerned with worker safety over money for some Lordlings and their brethren.
You are simply repeating an argument that negates 99.99999999% of all history! Which is the same shit line of thinking we see in certain political camps. *gasp* I am so shocked!
Blah blah, go read a book you ignorant twat. If you refuse to educate yourself sit in your sandbox and keep the world safe from the likes of you. Your uneducated opinion provides no realistic value to anyone.
Pretty sure that such an argument would be outweighed by the sheer number of dead (wealthy or not), combined with the fact that the newest, greatest, and biggest ship that mankind had built up to that point in time had just sank.
If you really believe such a thing, you lack any knowledge in the history humans and civilizations. Ignorance is at least curable, assuming you are not so mentally deranged as to believe your ignorance is superior to knowledge. Sadly that position has become the most prevalent, but perhaps you are an exception to the norm.
The only upside is that many of the people who were killed were among the wealthiest elite of the time
Why the fuck is that an upside?
There is an argument to be made that if the wealthy had not died safety regulations would not have been enacted and enhanced. If it's only "those" people that died it's easy to overlook.
I stated sarcastically that more Government was not the answer, and you jumped to "Anarchy fails". I then stated there is a middle ground and that shallow people refuse to see it.
How the hell can you argue that ~Wage disparity is not caused by Government~ or it's opposite, without discussing economics? I pointed you at sources, namely a Nobel price winning economist who has proven everything I stated. He won the Nobel prize for doing that work. DO THE WORK, READ THE MATERIAL! Nothing else to be said as your statements are completely irrational, and you are more than happy to defend your delusions. Grats on being impaired.
Economics at the Country scale is incredibly complex. How has the Government impacted wages? Would be a massive discussion but here are a few basics. You can read Milton Friedman as I have for a second opinion, and I will tell you that Nobel prize winning mind is much better at this game. I'd also recommend you read Adam Smith to see what the early expectation of Government was.
1. Illegal immigration: The lack of enforcement has driven down wages for the bottom earners in the economy. The US has approximately 11.5 million illegal immigrants in the US. This is over 5% of the working population, who can be forced to work for less than minimum wage but if the employer is generous they will get minimum wage.
2. Mandated Monopolies: The Government has increased monopolization by extending Patents to ideas, increased duration for copyrights, increased duration for trademark, and allowing patents to be extended by non patent holders. E.G. my widget is an extension to your app, and my patent prevents competition just like yours does.
3. Limited Access: Fees for numerous markets, highly impacting medical/pharmaceutical/manufacturing, prevent entry into the market. This comes in the form Certification, Regulation, and up front Licensing. Many "rules" require you to have a specialized set of degrees and certifications to operate in a given market.
Pre-1980/1990 The consumer based market could shift to better players when they are allowed to exist. Not always, but the Governments role is not to prevent entry but stop abuses. We often hear about how snake oil salesmen had a free for all in the US, until the Government saved us all. The market had corrections for those people, sometimes rather violent to intimidate people into choosing a safer career.
The Government can not level the field without owning all of the power. That is the game to avoid because tyrants and peasants is the historical outcome of those scenarios EVERY SINGLE time. Limited Government works, and has historical backing.
More government has lead to the complete opposite of equal wages and reduced wage disparity. The US is not the only game in town by any stretch of the imagination. Look around the world and investigate. Every time the Government is given the ability to make things "fair" to the populace you have tyrants and peasants. Not once, not twice, but every single time.
China, Russia, most of Eastern Europe, any country in the Middle East, any country in Africa, Most of South America, they all have "The Government will save you" Governments and all of them have two classes of citizen. Those in Government who are wealthy and those not in government who are the peasant workers.
Where we have the most fair systems are where the Free Market is allowed to work and the Government does it's best to stop corruption and predatory monopolization.
Most people here claim that the only options are Anarchy or Massive Government, which is absurd. There is a middle ground where the Government does as Adam Smith described in his books and acts as a police and law enforcement agency to keep the field clear of crap. Friedman repeated and modernized the message, but most people in the US have little knowledge of him.
*sigh* Not venting at you, but at the general lack of intelligent discourse on the subject.
Amazing how the only alternative to a huge bloated government is the complete lack of government. I am glad to see that people can be so shallow and mentally deranged.
You need to get a Calendar and some history books, because the US Politicians have been in bed with the Saudis since I was a kid in the 70s. Oddly we have a "travel at your own risk" warning for anyone going there, they are one of the most oppressive tyrannies on Earth, have a worse human rights record than China and close to the DPRK, and have a history of undercutting US businesses attempting to compete in the Oil business.
Did we know about the Saudis and 9/11? Well the Government gave people a fairy tale and the public eats it up. Nobody wants to believe that their own government would fuck them over, so the delusion is incredible. The brain washing around the event is still very strong, with the populace having an irrationally strong emotional reaction to any mention of 9/11, FDNY, or the Twin Towers.
Be prepared for nothing to happen and nothing to change. Remember, if you question anything the Government tells you about anything related to 9/11 you are a "Conspiracy theorist". (queue the *dun dun dun* music).
Not from the DB who ran the hoax, but all of the hero types on Slashdot claiming all kinds of ad hominem against people who questioned whether it was a hoax. I could care less about the guy who ran the hoax, he is just one of them losers who wants attention (even if it's bad).
I see a huge false narrative. "Productivity" is a result of numerous things, and primarily related to Freedom. Yet I don't see this person mention Government regulation and usurpation of individual rights anywhere. He does mention wage disparity, but that is due to Government activity, not the Market. The educational problems are another issue where the Government has taken over and failed miserably.
But hey, more Government will surely come to the rescue and save us from that other Government waste and abuse.
*nothing directed at you, except the agreement with your statement*
Even if you don't live in California a good percentage of the money UC has is from Government grants. You not only paid for the officer pepper spraying people who were sitting and completely peaceful, but you paid for the huge amount of Government propaganda surrounding the incident _and_ the coverup. That you paid for it all should really really piss you off.
Sure, search warrant != arrest warrant != bench warrant. But, in the case of an arrest warrant the police are not kidnapping someone, they have a specific name and set of rules for "custody" and use that terminology very intentionally. Just like a bank withdraw is not robbery, even though both actions take money out of a bank.
You don't seem to understand what a warrant is. A warrant does not change the law and make the illegal legal. A warrant is a stay of prosecution, so that an officer can perform an act which is illegal without fear of prosecution. Hacking is illegal, and a warrant does not magically make it legal. It simply means that within the parameters of the Warrant the officers will not be charged with the breaking the law.
That said, do you believe that the judge understood what the FBI was really requesting? Do you believe that the FBI was honest in their request? Do you really believe that the FBI maintained the boundaries of the Warrant given the evidence? Read it, the answers are No, No, and No.
My example uses _YOUR_ logic! According to your statement, the FBI can break into your computer (crime), install illegal software (another crime), and log all of your activities (outside of the scope of the warrant, so another crime), and they can do so because they had a warrant.
I agree the logic is silly, and that is the point of showing the extremes of _your logic_.
Pretty cool how you claim that it's not illegal after change the wording to specify "on computers I own", where in the case and point being discussed the FBI did this on computers they DID NOT own. Oh, and go ahead and install keyloggers on computers you own that other people can access. If you don't believe your wife can not have you prosecuted.. you are hilariously ignorant. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in most you will be guilty of violating Federal wiretapping laws.
-- Some anonymous coward complains about people calling out trolling, trolling.
The funny part is the person you responded to did not claim "trolling", they expressed a healthy skepticism. That last part is something more people should have. There are plenty of liars out there. Quite often they work for main stream media outlets and hold public offices.
Had the FBI actually not broken numerous laws I may agree with you. The FBI installing illegal software without the person's knowledge is a bit different from wiretapping.
They had a warrant to install the software so it no different than a wiretap other than the point of collection.
The only moral equivalency is in the receipt of a warrant, not the action the warrant supports. If i take what you said to it's extreme, as long as an agent got a warrant to kill someone it's fine. They had a warrant.
First, the only way for the FBI to have this illegal software would be to create the software which is a criminal act. Alternatively, and more likely, they could have conspired with criminals to acquire the software. (It should be obvious that "criminals" could be agencies within Government(s).)
Data and keystroke logging software is not illegal, nor is creating such software. Software to report the results of such activity is not illegal either.
Simply put, your assertions of illegal and criminal activity is incorrect.
I find it very improbable that you are both completely ignorant and spouting lies unintentionally. Here is a test for you. Do what you just claimed is not illegal on a public computer. Make sure you wave to the camera and show them your ID. Let us know how it feels to plea bargain down to 2-5 years in Prison, if you can get it down that far. Just yesterday a reporter got 24 months for giving a username and password to someone.
Maybe you wish to clarify your statement and change your claim to be "not illegal for the Government to do since they write the rules and can change the rules at will.". Which is the ethical part I previously said is a problem.
Had the FBI actually not broken numerous laws I may agree with you. The FBI installing illegal software without the person's knowledge is a bit different from wiretapping. First, the only way for the FBI to have this illegal software would be to create the software which is a criminal act. Alternatively, and more likely, they could have conspired with criminals to acquire the software. (It should be obvious that "criminals" could be agencies within Government(s).)
Wiretapping is legal and has some moral uses. We can correctly state that the person maintains the assumption of innocence while they are being wiretapped. Installing software to spy requires the assumption of guilt, and provides the means for the actors to create evidence.
The loss of ethics and morality in the agency makes them a gestapo, not a public police force. I'm sure that is the intent of this, and literally thousands of other cases within the last several years. It's the Government against the public, until the public takes back the Government.
Like you I read the bill and wonder why on earth the President would threaten to veto a bill which ensures that the Government can not mandate the rate people pay for service. Then I consider that this is FUD, and it all makes perfect sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't think one set of facts will change the original emotionally generated stories. The common view is that facts don't matter, it's what people "feel" that counts.
Many young people are not buying houses, and many are not able to afford rent on their own. The amount of adults living with parents today has skyrocketed from 30 years ago. The amount of renters and shared rent agreements has also skyrocketed in that same time.
College loans of 35K are certainly not high, but if you don't make enough money to live on you are going to pay the minimums.
Let me help _YOU_ out, and show you the level of ignorance you are displaying. How workers died building railroads? How many died building the Pyramids? How many peasants died to feed the nobles? How many died building sky scrapers? How many impoverished people died mining coal? How many poor people died as soldiers on any side of a war? The overwhelming majority of those deaths were preventable if people were concerned with worker safety over money for some Lordlings and their brethren.
You are simply repeating an argument that negates 99.99999999% of all history! Which is the same shit line of thinking we see in certain political camps. *gasp* I am so shocked!
Blah blah, go read a book you ignorant twat. If you refuse to educate yourself sit in your sandbox and keep the world safe from the likes of you. Your uneducated opinion provides no realistic value to anyone.
Pretty sure that such an argument would be outweighed by the sheer number of dead (wealthy or not), combined with the fact that the newest, greatest, and biggest ship that mankind had built up to that point in time had just sank.
If you really believe such a thing, you lack any knowledge in the history humans and civilizations. Ignorance is at least curable, assuming you are not so mentally deranged as to believe your ignorance is superior to knowledge. Sadly that position has become the most prevalent, but perhaps you are an exception to the norm.
The only upside is that many of the people who were killed were among the wealthiest elite of the time
Why the fuck is that an upside?
There is an argument to be made that if the wealthy had not died safety regulations would not have been enacted and enhanced. If it's only "those" people that died it's easy to overlook.
I stated sarcastically that more Government was not the answer, and you jumped to "Anarchy fails". I then stated there is a middle ground and that shallow people refuse to see it.
How the hell can you argue that ~Wage disparity is not caused by Government~ or it's opposite, without discussing economics? I pointed you at sources, namely a Nobel price winning economist who has proven everything I stated. He won the Nobel prize for doing that work. DO THE WORK, READ THE MATERIAL! Nothing else to be said as your statements are completely irrational, and you are more than happy to defend your delusions. Grats on being impaired.
Economics at the Country scale is incredibly complex. How has the Government impacted wages? Would be a massive discussion but here are a few basics. You can read Milton Friedman as I have for a second opinion, and I will tell you that Nobel prize winning mind is much better at this game. I'd also recommend you read Adam Smith to see what the early expectation of Government was.
1. Illegal immigration: The lack of enforcement has driven down wages for the bottom earners in the economy. The US has approximately 11.5 million illegal immigrants in the US. This is over 5% of the working population, who can be forced to work for less than minimum wage but if the employer is generous they will get minimum wage.
2. Mandated Monopolies: The Government has increased monopolization by extending Patents to ideas, increased duration for copyrights, increased duration for trademark, and allowing patents to be extended by non patent holders. E.G. my widget is an extension to your app, and my patent prevents competition just like yours does.
3. Limited Access: Fees for numerous markets, highly impacting medical/pharmaceutical/manufacturing, prevent entry into the market. This comes in the form Certification, Regulation, and up front Licensing. Many "rules" require you to have a specialized set of degrees and certifications to operate in a given market.
Pre-1980/1990 The consumer based market could shift to better players when they are allowed to exist. Not always, but the Governments role is not to prevent entry but stop abuses. We often hear about how snake oil salesmen had a free for all in the US, until the Government saved us all. The market had corrections for those people, sometimes rather violent to intimidate people into choosing a safer career.
The Government can not level the field without owning all of the power. That is the game to avoid because tyrants and peasants is the historical outcome of those scenarios EVERY SINGLE time. Limited Government works, and has historical backing.
More government has lead to the complete opposite of equal wages and reduced wage disparity. The US is not the only game in town by any stretch of the imagination. Look around the world and investigate. Every time the Government is given the ability to make things "fair" to the populace you have tyrants and peasants. Not once, not twice, but every single time.
China, Russia, most of Eastern Europe, any country in the Middle East, any country in Africa, Most of South America, they all have "The Government will save you" Governments and all of them have two classes of citizen. Those in Government who are wealthy and those not in government who are the peasant workers.
Where we have the most fair systems are where the Free Market is allowed to work and the Government does it's best to stop corruption and predatory monopolization.
Most people here claim that the only options are Anarchy or Massive Government, which is absurd. There is a middle ground where the Government does as Adam Smith described in his books and acts as a police and law enforcement agency to keep the field clear of crap. Friedman repeated and modernized the message, but most people in the US have little knowledge of him.
*sigh* Not venting at you, but at the general lack of intelligent discourse on the subject.
Amazing how the only alternative to a huge bloated government is the complete lack of government. I am glad to see that people can be so shallow and mentally deranged.
You need to get a Calendar and some history books, because the US Politicians have been in bed with the Saudis since I was a kid in the 70s. Oddly we have a "travel at your own risk" warning for anyone going there, they are one of the most oppressive tyrannies on Earth, have a worse human rights record than China and close to the DPRK, and have a history of undercutting US businesses attempting to compete in the Oil business.
Did we know about the Saudis and 9/11? Well the Government gave people a fairy tale and the public eats it up. Nobody wants to believe that their own government would fuck them over, so the delusion is incredible. The brain washing around the event is still very strong, with the populace having an irrationally strong emotional reaction to any mention of 9/11, FDNY, or the Twin Towers.
Be prepared for nothing to happen and nothing to change. Remember, if you question anything the Government tells you about anything related to 9/11 you are a "Conspiracy theorist". (queue the *dun dun dun* music).
Not from the DB who ran the hoax, but all of the hero types on Slashdot claiming all kinds of ad hominem against people who questioned whether it was a hoax. I could care less about the guy who ran the hoax, he is just one of them losers who wants attention (even if it's bad).
I see a huge false narrative. "Productivity" is a result of numerous things, and primarily related to Freedom. Yet I don't see this person mention Government regulation and usurpation of individual rights anywhere. He does mention wage disparity, but that is due to Government activity, not the Market. The educational problems are another issue where the Government has taken over and failed miserably.
But hey, more Government will surely come to the rescue and save us from that other Government waste and abuse.
*nothing directed at you, except the agreement with your statement*
Even if you don't live in California a good percentage of the money UC has is from Government grants. You not only paid for the officer pepper spraying people who were sitting and completely peaceful, but you paid for the huge amount of Government propaganda surrounding the incident _and_ the coverup. That you paid for it all should really really piss you off.
That is the normal hire for all of these commissions, mostly because nepotism would be too obvious if done too often.
Sure, search warrant != arrest warrant != bench warrant. But, in the case of an arrest warrant the police are not kidnapping someone, they have a specific name and set of rules for "custody" and use that terminology very intentionally. Just like a bank withdraw is not robbery, even though both actions take money out of a bank.
Too funny. When you get proven to be wrong, run away mad. Immaturity across the board, grats on that.
See this: https://slashdot.org/comments....
You don't seem to understand what a warrant is. A warrant does not change the law and make the illegal legal. A warrant is a stay of prosecution, so that an officer can perform an act which is illegal without fear of prosecution. Hacking is illegal, and a warrant does not magically make it legal. It simply means that within the parameters of the Warrant the officers will not be charged with the breaking the law.
That said, do you believe that the judge understood what the FBI was really requesting? Do you believe that the FBI was honest in their request? Do you really believe that the FBI maintained the boundaries of the Warrant given the evidence? Read it, the answers are No, No, and No.
My example uses _YOUR_ logic! According to your statement, the FBI can break into your computer (crime), install illegal software (another crime), and log all of your activities (outside of the scope of the warrant, so another crime), and they can do so because they had a warrant.
I agree the logic is silly, and that is the point of showing the extremes of _your logic_.
Pretty cool how you claim that it's not illegal after change the wording to specify "on computers I own", where in the case and point being discussed the FBI did this on computers they DID NOT own. Oh, and go ahead and install keyloggers on computers you own that other people can access. If you don't believe your wife can not have you prosecuted.. you are hilariously ignorant. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in most you will be guilty of violating Federal wiretapping laws.
Thanks! I don't always read the subject and missed it. Can I call it an out of "body" experience? :^X The skepticism part is still correct.
You missed one.
-- Some anonymous coward complains about people calling out trolling, trolling.
The funny part is the person you responded to did not claim "trolling", they expressed a healthy skepticism. That last part is something more people should have. There are plenty of liars out there. Quite often they work for main stream media outlets and hold public offices.
Had the FBI actually not broken numerous laws I may agree with you. The FBI installing illegal software without the person's knowledge is a bit different from wiretapping.
They had a warrant to install the software so it no different than a wiretap other than the point of collection.
The only moral equivalency is in the receipt of a warrant, not the action the warrant supports. If i take what you said to it's extreme, as long as an agent got a warrant to kill someone it's fine. They had a warrant.
First, the only way for the FBI to have this illegal software would be to create the software which is a criminal act. Alternatively, and more likely, they could have conspired with criminals to acquire the software. (It should be obvious that "criminals" could be agencies within Government(s).)
Data and keystroke logging software is not illegal, nor is creating such software. Software to report the results of such activity is not illegal either.
Simply put, your assertions of illegal and criminal activity is incorrect.
I find it very improbable that you are both completely ignorant and spouting lies unintentionally. Here is a test for you. Do what you just claimed is not illegal on a public computer. Make sure you wave to the camera and show them your ID. Let us know how it feels to plea bargain down to 2-5 years in Prison, if you can get it down that far. Just yesterday a reporter got 24 months for giving a username and password to someone.
Maybe you wish to clarify your statement and change your claim to be "not illegal for the Government to do since they write the rules and can change the rules at will.". Which is the ethical part I previously said is a problem.
Had the FBI actually not broken numerous laws I may agree with you. The FBI installing illegal software without the person's knowledge is a bit different from wiretapping. First, the only way for the FBI to have this illegal software would be to create the software which is a criminal act. Alternatively, and more likely, they could have conspired with criminals to acquire the software. (It should be obvious that "criminals" could be agencies within Government(s).)
Wiretapping is legal and has some moral uses. We can correctly state that the person maintains the assumption of innocence while they are being wiretapped. Installing software to spy requires the assumption of guilt, and provides the means for the actors to create evidence.
The loss of ethics and morality in the agency makes them a gestapo, not a public police force. I'm sure that is the intent of this, and literally thousands of other cases within the last several years. It's the Government against the public, until the public takes back the Government.
Like you I read the bill and wonder why on earth the President would threaten to veto a bill which ensures that the Government can not mandate the rate people pay for service. Then I consider that this is FUD, and it all makes perfect sense.
Sorry for using the big words. CEO != Politician, and Politician != CEO. Apples and Oranges and stuff.
Better for you?