Forks require maintenance, though. If virtually every large project in the ecosystem has to be forked, the manpower required to support them all will be prohibitive.
I agree that there is a considerable amount of crying wolf here. The problem is, sometimes there actually is a wolf. You have to exercise your judgment every time.
FWIW, I supported third party candidates in the past two elections (which were the first two I have really cared about), and I expect to continue doing so in the future once we're past the current conundrum. But here and now, I don't see voting your conscience and disregarding the consequences as a viable option, if you have any kinds of long-term political plans (and don't just do it as a way of showing the middle finger). Trump is a very real threat not even to anyone specifically, but to democracy in general; and for those long-term plans to come to fruition - and especially now, when right wing is in chaos, there's a very real opportunity for a third party, probably LP, to step in - preserving at least such democracy as we have is crucial. And that means Never Trump. Heck, I'd support Cruz if he were running against Trump, and I loathe that man and his policies - but he's not a fundamental threat to the political system the way Trump is.
It could be parody, it does not look like a parody and it will strike fear in the heart of NRA supporters. The asymmetric enforcement of second amendment rights is the core of NRA and its followers mission. White people with long guns, with fingers on the trigger can walk into departmental stores, or pick arguments with police officers, insult the police and terrorize play grounds with impunity. Stand your ground, Open Carry and such slogans are meant for them.
The irony is that if you actually go to a place where die-hard gun nuts hang out (and I'm talking about people who think that NRA is "too mushy" on gun rights), and read the comments on that video, you'll find that they actually kinda wish this was a real thing and not a parody.
Of course it is a "lesser of two evils" argument. You have to make choices like that in life all the time. Now, in many cases the right thing to do is to walk away, because long-term, the benefits of that choice outweigh the immediate damage caused by the "greater evil". I generally support third parties for this reason. However, to blindly stick to that strategy regardless of the circumstances is foolish. When the difference between the greater evil and the lesser one is as great as it is this time, making sure that the greater doesn't win becomes paramount.
Sure, it's a duh thing. But having someone who is likely to end up in a position of (relative) power soon is refreshing, and indicates that something might actually get done about it.
It's not hypocritical to back the candidate that has the only reasonable chance to stop Trump at this point. Sure, Hillary is a plutocrat. I'll take a plutocrat over a fascist any day. Plutocrats can be ousted later in the same manner we tried this cycle. Fascists can usually only ousted with an armed revolt.
This just goes to show (along with numerous other examples) that the market forces are notoriously limited in their perspective, and we should not rely on them for long-term planning.
And if there isn't, and we can't, say, make new MRI machines, then what? Do we at least get to dig out your corpse and hang it as a warning to future generations?
Sorry, but I'm not going to trust the nebulous predictions of "we're just going to science and engineer shit out of it eventually". Not unless you have very specific figures to back up those assertions, and reasonably conclude that, yes, by the time helium shortage will impact critical applications, we will definitely have other cheap sources of it.
I can get a personal loan over the Internet, complete with ID checks and them reviewing the copies of my various documents (like W-2) - all by scanning them and sending them over, and using digital signatures for signing. If that's good enough for private lenders where tens of thousands of dollars are at stake, I don't see why the government couldn't do it.
There are plenty of high-rises built in earthquake zones all over the world. It may come as a surprise, but we actually know how to build those things in ways that can handle the stress.
GP is right in that, while Airbnb does make the situation worse, it's really only noticeable because the situation is so bad to begin with. And the situation is so bad because the city has too many residents (not visitors! residents who live and work there), but stubbornly refuses to change its zoning and building policies to accommodate it. Short of such accommodation, the only reasonable thing to do is to allow the property market prices reflect that artificial scarcity, and let market sort it out. Of course, it will also cause undue grief to the not-so-well-off residents who can't afford it all; if you have a problem with that, then government should absolutely get involved, but in the directly opposite manner of what they're doing now.
Sure, but by that time all that impure helium that is being spent today is already gone and cannot be recovered. So once we get to the point where impure helium becomes valuable, we'll have a smaller reserve of it than we would have otherwise had.
This is exactly the kind of thing that the government should control. We're talking about an element that is consumed at a rate much faster than it is produced naturally, and which escapes the atmosphere if released. Wasting it on silly things today means that important things that actually need it are going to be more expensive tomorrow.
What if they decide to kill you instead of kicking you out? Say, some local equivalent of Trump comes to power on the platform of "death to the white devils!" or some such.
Direct democracy is great and all, but we have to work with the system that we have now to get there. It won't magically change overnight.
Well, then, you can push the wages even higher by having your region (or, hey, even city!) secede, and block everyone on the other side of the border from coming there to work. That way, the labor market will shrink, and the wages will skyrocket!
Right?
On a more serious note, economy is not a zero-sum game. Yes, they will depress your wages - short-term. But their country is itself a market, ripe for opportunity - and with truly open borders, your local companies (rather than transnational giants who can literally buy governments) can expand there, creating more jobs - both there (which reduces the number of people who come to compete with you locally) and here (management etc). It takes a while for this to play out, and yes, you need to do it slowly enough that it's not a shock to either economy - and I'm not sure whether EU was expanding slow enough for that, so there's a legitimate gripe there. But done right, the end result is better for everyone, because it means one less shitty country where people want to run away from and go anywhere else, even illegally (and end up living next door and "stealing your job" - and willing to work for pennies, because of just how shitty the place they came from is); where organized crime and other scum like human traffickers have a safe haven; where, eventually, discontent and jealousy breeds aggressive nationalism and/or terrorism.
Yes, it is. It might not benefit you personally, but it sure does benefit those people from Romania way more than it benefits any corporation.
Like I said, the way big corporations like it when they can produce shit in Romania, and pay people who make it the local prevailing wage. Then take the produced goods to you, and sell them for a price that's cheaper than what is possible with local labor, but still way more than what they actually paid in Romania. And pocket the difference. Simply put, they like to outsource, and free movement of labor is detrimental to outsourcing because they can't impose as much of a difference in wages as they could otherwise (since people will just move to where wages are higher beyond a certain threshold).
I have to ask - why do you care about people from Romania flooding your job market, more so than people from some remote corner of your own country? What's the difference?
It is a union for corporations trying to maximize their profits, there is not anything tangible in it for the people in the union or their economies beyond the interests of the corporations.
Um, freedom of movement across EU, combined with the ability to seek a job in any country. That is actually very pro-people and anti-corporation (corporations prefer free flow of goods but restricted flow of labor, because then they can cash in on the difference in cost of living, labor protection laws etc between countries that manufacture and countries that consume).
EU will not tolerate easily the exit of a vassal. They will do their worst to punish the Brits for this act of high treason
This will play into the hands of eurosceptic right wingers if they pitch it right. "See, EU is punishing UK for disobedience! We can be the next ones, if we turn down refugees again! Let's burn this sucker down before it happens!"
You can't not be involved in politics. By its very nature, politics applies to everyone. You can avoid getting involved in the part of it that affects how decisions are made, sure. But the decisions will still affect you.
What will happen if EU decides to play hard? i.e. "You guys can stay, but all that preferential treatment that you said you need, and then voted to leave anyway? Forget about it. Euro and Schengen - or GTFO".
It remains to be seen whether EU can actually meaningfully stomp down on all those referendums. Right wing is on the rise all across Europe; remember what happened this year in Austria? We'll see more of this, until the existing issues are resolved one way or another. And it's not clear whether EU can resolve them...
Where do we start that accounting? Can someone with a Breton lineage in UK demand reparation from Germanic nations? Should the Basques claim reparations from Indo-European settlers who took over? Do people with Neanderthal ancestry get anything from the descendants of Cro-Magnons for destruction wrought upon their race?
Yes, quite a bit. And a bit like GOP electorate in general.
Most of Western politics these days is urban vs rural. All other "wedge issues" either stem directly from that divide, or are artificially grafted on top of it.
They're not stupid. It's exactly what they want - for Facebook, Skype etc to withdraw, allowing local Russian companies (with servers in Russia, which are therefore subject to monitoring and blocking by Russian intelligence services) to fill in that void.
Slashdot Mirror
Forks require maintenance, though. If virtually every large project in the ecosystem has to be forked, the manpower required to support them all will be prohibitive.
I agree that there is a considerable amount of crying wolf here. The problem is, sometimes there actually is a wolf. You have to exercise your judgment every time.
FWIW, I supported third party candidates in the past two elections (which were the first two I have really cared about), and I expect to continue doing so in the future once we're past the current conundrum. But here and now, I don't see voting your conscience and disregarding the consequences as a viable option, if you have any kinds of long-term political plans (and don't just do it as a way of showing the middle finger). Trump is a very real threat not even to anyone specifically, but to democracy in general; and for those long-term plans to come to fruition - and especially now, when right wing is in chaos, there's a very real opportunity for a third party, probably LP, to step in - preserving at least such democracy as we have is crucial. And that means Never Trump. Heck, I'd support Cruz if he were running against Trump, and I loathe that man and his policies - but he's not a fundamental threat to the political system the way Trump is.
It could be parody, it does not look like a parody and it will strike fear in the heart of NRA supporters.
The asymmetric enforcement of second amendment rights is the core of NRA and its followers mission. White people with long guns, with fingers on the trigger can walk into departmental stores, or pick arguments with police officers, insult the police and terrorize play grounds with impunity. Stand your ground, Open Carry and such slogans are meant for them.
The irony is that if you actually go to a place where die-hard gun nuts hang out (and I'm talking about people who think that NRA is "too mushy" on gun rights), and read the comments on that video, you'll find that they actually kinda wish this was a real thing and not a parody.
Of course it is a "lesser of two evils" argument. You have to make choices like that in life all the time. Now, in many cases the right thing to do is to walk away, because long-term, the benefits of that choice outweigh the immediate damage caused by the "greater evil". I generally support third parties for this reason. However, to blindly stick to that strategy regardless of the circumstances is foolish. When the difference between the greater evil and the lesser one is as great as it is this time, making sure that the greater doesn't win becomes paramount.
Sure, it's a duh thing. But having someone who is likely to end up in a position of (relative) power soon is refreshing, and indicates that something might actually get done about it.
It's not hypocritical to back the candidate that has the only reasonable chance to stop Trump at this point. Sure, Hillary is a plutocrat. I'll take a plutocrat over a fascist any day. Plutocrats can be ousted later in the same manner we tried this cycle. Fascists can usually only ousted with an armed revolt.
This just goes to show (along with numerous other examples) that the market forces are notoriously limited in their perspective, and we should not rely on them for long-term planning.
No; only to the one that is not renewable and doesn't have alternatives.
And if there isn't, and we can't, say, make new MRI machines, then what? Do we at least get to dig out your corpse and hang it as a warning to future generations?
Sorry, but I'm not going to trust the nebulous predictions of "we're just going to science and engineer shit out of it eventually". Not unless you have very specific figures to back up those assertions, and reasonably conclude that, yes, by the time helium shortage will impact critical applications, we will definitely have other cheap sources of it.
I can get a personal loan over the Internet, complete with ID checks and them reviewing the copies of my various documents (like W-2) - all by scanning them and sending them over, and using digital signatures for signing. If that's good enough for private lenders where tens of thousands of dollars are at stake, I don't see why the government couldn't do it.
There are plenty of high-rises built in earthquake zones all over the world. It may come as a surprise, but we actually know how to build those things in ways that can handle the stress.
GP is right in that, while Airbnb does make the situation worse, it's really only noticeable because the situation is so bad to begin with. And the situation is so bad because the city has too many residents (not visitors! residents who live and work there), but stubbornly refuses to change its zoning and building policies to accommodate it. Short of such accommodation, the only reasonable thing to do is to allow the property market prices reflect that artificial scarcity, and let market sort it out. Of course, it will also cause undue grief to the not-so-well-off residents who can't afford it all; if you have a problem with that, then government should absolutely get involved, but in the directly opposite manner of what they're doing now.
Because it uses up a limited non-renewable resource that doesn't have a good replacement for many important applications.
Driving around for no reason is kinda sorta comparable in that it uses up oil, but it can be replaced with something else in most applications.
Sure, but by that time all that impure helium that is being spent today is already gone and cannot be recovered. So once we get to the point where impure helium becomes valuable, we'll have a smaller reserve of it than we would have otherwise had.
This is exactly the kind of thing that the government should control. We're talking about an element that is consumed at a rate much faster than it is produced naturally, and which escapes the atmosphere if released. Wasting it on silly things today means that important things that actually need it are going to be more expensive tomorrow.
What if they decide to kill you instead of kicking you out? Say, some local equivalent of Trump comes to power on the platform of "death to the white devils!" or some such.
Direct democracy is great and all, but we have to work with the system that we have now to get there. It won't magically change overnight.
Well, then, you can push the wages even higher by having your region (or, hey, even city!) secede, and block everyone on the other side of the border from coming there to work. That way, the labor market will shrink, and the wages will skyrocket!
Right?
On a more serious note, economy is not a zero-sum game. Yes, they will depress your wages - short-term. But their country is itself a market, ripe for opportunity - and with truly open borders, your local companies (rather than transnational giants who can literally buy governments) can expand there, creating more jobs - both there (which reduces the number of people who come to compete with you locally) and here (management etc). It takes a while for this to play out, and yes, you need to do it slowly enough that it's not a shock to either economy - and I'm not sure whether EU was expanding slow enough for that, so there's a legitimate gripe there. But done right, the end result is better for everyone, because it means one less shitty country where people want to run away from and go anywhere else, even illegally (and end up living next door and "stealing your job" - and willing to work for pennies, because of just how shitty the place they came from is); where organized crime and other scum like human traffickers have a safe haven; where, eventually, discontent and jealousy breeds aggressive nationalism and/or terrorism.
Yes, it is. It might not benefit you personally, but it sure does benefit those people from Romania way more than it benefits any corporation.
Like I said, the way big corporations like it when they can produce shit in Romania, and pay people who make it the local prevailing wage. Then take the produced goods to you, and sell them for a price that's cheaper than what is possible with local labor, but still way more than what they actually paid in Romania. And pocket the difference. Simply put, they like to outsource, and free movement of labor is detrimental to outsourcing because they can't impose as much of a difference in wages as they could otherwise (since people will just move to where wages are higher beyond a certain threshold).
I have to ask - why do you care about people from Romania flooding your job market, more so than people from some remote corner of your own country? What's the difference?
It is a union for corporations trying to maximize their profits, there is not anything tangible in it for the people in the union or their economies beyond the interests of the corporations.
Um, freedom of movement across EU, combined with the ability to seek a job in any country. That is actually very pro-people and anti-corporation (corporations prefer free flow of goods but restricted flow of labor, because then they can cash in on the difference in cost of living, labor protection laws etc between countries that manufacture and countries that consume).
EU will not tolerate easily the exit of a vassal. They will do their worst to punish the Brits for this act of high treason
This will play into the hands of eurosceptic right wingers if they pitch it right. "See, EU is punishing UK for disobedience! We can be the next ones, if we turn down refugees again! Let's burn this sucker down before it happens!"
You can't not be involved in politics. By its very nature, politics applies to everyone. You can avoid getting involved in the part of it that affects how decisions are made, sure. But the decisions will still affect you.
What will happen if EU decides to play hard? i.e. "You guys can stay, but all that preferential treatment that you said you need, and then voted to leave anyway? Forget about it. Euro and Schengen - or GTFO".
It remains to be seen whether EU can actually meaningfully stomp down on all those referendums. Right wing is on the rise all across Europe; remember what happened this year in Austria? We'll see more of this, until the existing issues are resolved one way or another. And it's not clear whether EU can resolve them...
Where do we start that accounting? Can someone with a Breton lineage in UK demand reparation from Germanic nations? Should the Basques claim reparations from Indo-European settlers who took over? Do people with Neanderthal ancestry get anything from the descendants of Cro-Magnons for destruction wrought upon their race?
Yes, quite a bit. And a bit like GOP electorate in general.
Most of Western politics these days is urban vs rural. All other "wedge issues" either stem directly from that divide, or are artificially grafted on top of it.
They're not stupid. It's exactly what they want - for Facebook, Skype etc to withdraw, allowing local Russian companies (with servers in Russia, which are therefore subject to monitoring and blocking by Russian intelligence services) to fill in that void.