Much more than just one disadvantage. The big one is that governments and banks prefer to create their money in the dark and out of sight. They gain nearly nothing from this idea, and by making that stuff public, they lose a LOT.
You said that no one in your neighborhood voted for Trump, but instead voted against Hillary. That is literally a bubble. Geographically speaking, that is the very definition of a bubble. The area around you is an outlier, it does not represent the normal. Normal is that at least 1/3 of Republican voters were enthusiastic Trump supporters, and the rest voted for him because the alternative was Hillary.
As an outsider, your insight into the Tea Party movement means less than nothing. I'll give you a big hint, the movement is not about the politicians that adopted the label to get votes, nor is it about the guys that had honest good intentions and got corrupted as soon as they got to DC. The movement is about the people and the ideas, and both are gaining right now, in a very big way.
You were sad that the 12 or so Republican primary candidates that would have completed and delivered Obama's policies didn't win. Those are the guys you said you wanted to vote for. Those guys were the Republican wing of the uniparty. And they lost, probably for good.
Dude, you live in a bubble. There are millions of Trump supporters out here. How do you think he won the nomination?
The Tea Party faction of the Republican party has been growing in numbers and power since Rick's famous rant in 2009. The 2010 midterm primaries were a warning shot. There were a few more wins in 2012, but we didn't yet have the strength to get a good candidate for the presidency. The 2014 bloodbath showed that we were on track to take over in 2016, and we did. We didn't win everywhere, but we finally got a candidate who was willing to fight for us, and fight he did. And he won.
You are mourning the end of the uniparty. The Republican party no longer has the same goals as the Democrat party. Your side didn't win. It didn't help that your team started doing the touchdown dance on the 30 yard line, but the real reason is that we got off the sidelines and started pushing back.
Do you actually know what autocrat means, or did you just think it sounds cool?
I'm curious because it means "an absolute ruler, especially a monarch, who holds and exercises the powers of government by inherent right, not subject to restrictions" and I'm having a hard time squaring that with recent events. For example, if Trump is one of those, why did he bother with that 18-month campaign we all just watched? For that matter, why did he bother with the election at all?
Or did you mean it in a weak sense, like he enjoys reading about monarchs? If so, why would anyone care what his hobbies are? After all, an autocracy enthusiast has no more powers as President than he would have if he, for example, built ships in bottles or painted miniatures.
As a public service, I will link to every bit of evidence supporting the theory that Russia meddled in the election. Be warned, this list is as detailed as it is shocking.
.
I don't know how anyone can read all of that and not come to the conclusion that we must nuke Russia immediately..
Are you a moron or something? Those political nonprofits were trying to register AS POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS. Maybe you don't understand this, but there is a distinct category of nonprofit status just for organizations like them. The lazy auditors figured it out because the applicants checked the "political" box on the form.
The problem is that all but one or two of the left wing applications sailed through without a hitch, and a whole bunch of right wing groups got stuck in the IRS tar baby. Yes, the left does do that too. Some of them are still waiting, 2 elections later.
This was in the run up to the 2012 elections. Do you get that? Obama's administration actively suppressed the ability of citizens to organize opposition to his reelection campaign.
So, your response to "Why is Slashdot so biased?" is that you didn't even read the piece being discussed. Brilliant!
And now that you've been shamed into reading it, you are pretending that it doesn't say what it clearly says, and responding to things that no one said. Double brilliant!
You clearly didn't read the summary. It skipped over the fig leaf and jumped almost directly into all of the ways that you and your roads are killing the planet.
You are living in a fantasy. If there was evidence, we'd have heard about it by now. Instead, all of the evidence that we have heard of is pointing in the other direction.
Wikileaks says that the DNC emails were leaked, not hacked. Their source policy won't let them name anyone, but either it was Seth Rich, or Julian is using Seth Rich as misdirection to protect the life of the real leaker.
Not very long ago, the VPN provider that owns the IPs in question said that no American law enforcement had contacted them.
No one believes that Russia hacked the auto-pilot on Hillary's jet to make it fly to fundraisers on the coasts instead of campaigning in the flyover states she needed, but lost.
That incident where she was chucked into a van like a side of beef was probably not the result of hacking, but without knowing more about her implanted/wearable medical electronics, we may never know for sure.
Virtually the entire former news media was acting as an arm of the Clinton campaign. Unless Russia's hacking technology has progressed from computers to people, that can't possibly be the result of hacking.
For a narcissist, it is a semi-dichotomy. There is no option A, no option C, D or E. Just option B - "The Russians did it."
Please note that narcissism means "I'm the star of the movie".
In option A, Obama is the second act villain in a movie is about the American people. In the option C that someone else posted here, Obama is a few seconds of "mood" background in the opening sequence of a movie about Trump overcoming a powerful but strangely incompetent opponent.
In option B, Obama's third act challenge is a vast conspiracy of shadowy powers from across the globe, united to take down the wise and noble leader,
(If you don't understand the meaning of "second act" and "third act", look to the original Star Wars trilogy. The first act introduces the major characters, gives the heroes a challenge to overcome. The second act puts those characters into the worst situation you can think of. If that is too much of a downer, the heroes defeat a minor villain, usually introduced just for this act and then never heard from again, but this victory doesn't change the dire situation. In the third act, the stars overcome incredible odds for total victory. There is usually, but not always, a big villain revealed in the third act.)
Oh, I almost forgot. Since it is $CURRENT_YEAR, I need to provide the meme version too. So, if the above was TL;DR, please see this concise summary instead.
A) Either his ideas and presidency were so bad that he personally drove the country to find and elect someone like Trump, or
B) The Russia-fairy hacked the election.
I'm shocked and amazed that he picked B. What's even more amazing is that all of his political appointees also picked B, while the career intelligence officers that work for them all appear to have picked A.
That's not the point. The photographers are already taking those risks. Usually just by being there. If you are a credible westerner and you see something awful, if that becomes known, you might have a hard time getting out of that area alive, even if you aren't carrying a camera.
This helps the people they are interviewing and taking pictures of, assuring them that the pictures or video won't fall into the wrong hands.
Why did a half dozen people think that the proper response to my rebuttal of the meme, was to repeat the exact same thing? When did "say it again, louder" become your only debate tactic? Did you all go to government-run schools?
I don't mean to single you out. I could literally paste this post as a reply to almost everyone that responded to my initial comment. Cryptography can't solve all of our problems, but there are actual, concrete situations when it can help. I get it that understanding the threats and trying to figure out real solutions is harder than regurgitating a meme, but come on.
For all of you quoting XKCD or talking about rubber hose cryptography, I have three words: Public Key Cryptography
There is no reason why a keypair can't be generated on a safe computer in a safe country and only the public key gets loaded into the camera, while the private key remains safe. The border people could still eat the memory card, and they could add new encrypted photos/videos to it using the public key, but they couldn't view old stuff.
You could even set the system up so that the encryption key gets encrypted twice, once with the NV public key, and once with a volatile key that gets erased after a few minutes, or at the press of a button. That way the photographer would have time to make sure they got the shot they wanted.
4 links to articles asserting that fossil fuels get subsidies, and the only subsidy actually named is, hilariously, the cap on liability for nuclear accidents. If you had doubts about the neutrality of Wikipedia before, ask yourself why that would be included in a section titled "Impact of fossil fuel subsidies".
One article also links to another article that mentions production expenses for drilling, and loss of value of a field. These may sound familiar to people who have ever done business taxes, because similar deductions are available to most businesses. Also listed in that article are generic tax breaks available to all or most businesses.
I have never in my life referred to an email as "illegitimate". Not talking to bumpkins, not to construction workers, not to tradesmen, not to policemen, not to soldiers, not to doctors, not to lawyers, not to elected officials. Not to my employees, not to my bosses, not to CEOs, not to directors. Not to teenagers, not to millennials, not to adults, not to boomers, not to octogenarians.
However, I use the phrases "That's spam, delete it." and "Fake, trash it." damn near every day.
I haven't been around the world and seen everything, but I've seen a lot, and I've never met or heard of a group or demographic that would consider that phrasing normal.
There are times when spinning a tall tail to cover your ego is appropriate, and times when it is not. There are also good lies and bad lies. This one was pretty bad, and at a time when he's got a sizable fraction of the world looking in his direction. A better lie, and one that every single IT professional and talented amateur in the world would have believed completely, would have been: "I'm sorry, I was about to check the headers and I got distracted by a phone call / person walking into my office. When I got back to it, I had lost my place and mistakenly thought that I had checked when I hadn't."
Before pointing out the big obvious problem with that idea, I'll pause for a moment so that you can go check the links in some of your legitimate email. After you've had a bit of time to sob quietly, if you are again feeling brave, check the relay paths and senders of some of that crap.
Oh, and also some of us run our own mail services, but we generally know better than to click links in emails.
He did this to a thread linked up by a big newspaper article that drew lots of attention. He specifically edited posts that many people were going to see, and he edited them to make them look like the users of The_Donald hated the mods of The_Donald and thought they were crazy.
This was not him blowing off steam. This was not a harmless prank. This was a calculated and planned attempt to discredit, divide and slander a large group with political opinions that he doesn't like.
It is too late for me to dig through these quotes to demoronize the unicode. I apologize, but slashdot is the real culprit.
âoeWe triggered the world,â Spencer told âoeNightline.â âoeI think itâ(TM)s good to trigger people a little bit. When you get triggered it means that youâ(TM)re shocked, you thought something that you havenâ(TM)t thought before. It means that you have an open mind and you can start to see the world differently.â
âoeI think the alt-right has gained a great deal of ground, precisely because we are provocative,â he added. âoeAnd precisely because, to use bad language, we donâ(TM)t give a ---- on some level.â
âoeIf someone had told me two years ago that Donald Trump would be the alt-right hero and he would be president, I would be like, âWhat ridiculous movie are you talking about like this is not real life,â(TM) but it is real life,â Spencer said.
He told Mother Jones magazine that âoeHispanics and African Americans have lower average IQs than whites and are more genetically predisposed to commit crimesâ -- a pseudo-science argument of white supremacists which has been widely discredited. But Spencer called it âoean empirical fact.â
âoeWhen you study, say average intelligence say around the world, and you keep getting the same answer, at some point you are going to have to look towards genetics as a cause,â Spencer said.
âoeI think the current paradigm weâ(TM)re living under is going to lead to blood and tears,â Spencer said. âoeI don't know exactly what is going to happen but yes I do think that if there is going to be a major crack up⦠predominantly on racial lines.â
âoeI see myself as mainstream,â Spencer said. âoeI'm trying to normalize racism⦠I'm trying to normalize my ideas, our ideas of the alt-right, yes. I do not want the alt-right to be a fringe movement, I want the alt-right to be a dominant movement.â
Those are the actual quotes from the article. I see: fluff, fluff, fluff, fact, fact, prediction, fluff. Notice that the part about the all-white ethnostate isn't in quotes. That means that either Juju or Victoria wrote it, not Richard Spencer. Maybe he really feels that way, maybe he doesn't - but there is certainly no evidence along those lines here.
Now, I'm alt-right, but all that I know about Mr. Spencer comes from what I read here, and I think someone else that I read called him a clown once. Based on that, I'm going to say "attention whore" and "has the right enemies".
As a rule, I don't spend much time on attention whores. Right or wrong, their ideas, if they have any, are usually recycled from better thinkers and writers. On the other hand, when the press, the SPLC, and college students all universally hate someone, I figure they are worth looking at.
Also, when the press tells me that someone is a very bad man, but the important quotes are not from that man, but are about him, I start to wonder. Usually, that means that the press is in a panic about the ordinary and reasonable things he says, and not about the crazy things he may or may not think or say. By the way, this was Trump's last 18 months all over again. Endless hours of talking heads telling us that Trump is bad, no video of Trump actually being bad.
Seriously? When I ask for the next page, it is because I WANT TO READ THE NEXT PAGE, and not because I want to see how clever the scrolling animation is.
Also, key scrolling is a local browser function. Whether it is space or page down or META+wheel on the mouse or shaking your phone in just the right way, the browser is just jumping down the buffer a bit.
The problem is that the HTML specs provide a way to float crap on top, and ways to pin it to the top or bottom of the page, and also a hint to the browser that indicates how much reading space is covered by the crap, so that the browser knows how far to jump per page request. Lots of websites have the floaty crap, without the hint.
That's all that needs to happen. Web designers need to provide the height of the crap they are cluttering the page with, and they aren't. They aren't being asked to write special javascript to jump properly, they aren't being asked to write keyboard drivers, or layout engines. Just to include a hint about how much of the reading space their floaty crap is obscuring.
No. The assumption is that there is a higher risk of cancer associated with any radiation exposure, however small. And the "down to zero" part is really part of the current model, the so-called "no-threshold" part of Linear, no-threshold.
According to your "logic", the wisest thing we could possibly do is export and outsource ALL American jobs. Just imagine how rich we'd all be if none of us worked and nothing was produced here!
Wow, shocking. Four personal attacks and not one argument. If only something in the last 18 months or 18 years could have prepared me for this style of "debate".
Slashdot Mirror
Much more than just one disadvantage. The big one is that governments and banks prefer to create their money in the dark and out of sight. They gain nearly nothing from this idea, and by making that stuff public, they lose a LOT.
You said that no one in your neighborhood voted for Trump, but instead voted against Hillary. That is literally a bubble. Geographically speaking, that is the very definition of a bubble. The area around you is an outlier, it does not represent the normal. Normal is that at least 1/3 of Republican voters were enthusiastic Trump supporters, and the rest voted for him because the alternative was Hillary.
As an outsider, your insight into the Tea Party movement means less than nothing. I'll give you a big hint, the movement is not about the politicians that adopted the label to get votes, nor is it about the guys that had honest good intentions and got corrupted as soon as they got to DC. The movement is about the people and the ideas, and both are gaining right now, in a very big way.
You were sad that the 12 or so Republican primary candidates that would have completed and delivered Obama's policies didn't win. Those are the guys you said you wanted to vote for. Those guys were the Republican wing of the uniparty. And they lost, probably for good.
Dude, you live in a bubble. There are millions of Trump supporters out here. How do you think he won the nomination?
The Tea Party faction of the Republican party has been growing in numbers and power since Rick's famous rant in 2009. The 2010 midterm primaries were a warning shot. There were a few more wins in 2012, but we didn't yet have the strength to get a good candidate for the presidency. The 2014 bloodbath showed that we were on track to take over in 2016, and we did. We didn't win everywhere, but we finally got a candidate who was willing to fight for us, and fight he did. And he won.
You are mourning the end of the uniparty. The Republican party no longer has the same goals as the Democrat party. Your side didn't win. It didn't help that your team started doing the touchdown dance on the 30 yard line, but the real reason is that we got off the sidelines and started pushing back.
Do you actually know what autocrat means, or did you just think it sounds cool?
I'm curious because it means "an absolute ruler, especially a monarch, who holds and exercises the powers of government by inherent right, not subject to restrictions" and I'm having a hard time squaring that with recent events. For example, if Trump is one of those, why did he bother with that 18-month campaign we all just watched? For that matter, why did he bother with the election at all?
Or did you mean it in a weak sense, like he enjoys reading about monarchs? If so, why would anyone care what his hobbies are? After all, an autocracy enthusiast has no more powers as President than he would have if he, for example, built ships in bottles or painted miniatures.
As a public service, I will link to every bit of evidence supporting the theory that Russia meddled in the election. Be warned, this list is as detailed as it is shocking.
I don't know how anyone can read all of that and not come to the conclusion that we must nuke Russia immediately..
Are you a moron or something? Those political nonprofits were trying to register AS POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS. Maybe you don't understand this, but there is a distinct category of nonprofit status just for organizations like them. The lazy auditors figured it out because the applicants checked the "political" box on the form.
The problem is that all but one or two of the left wing applications sailed through without a hitch, and a whole bunch of right wing groups got stuck in the IRS tar baby. Yes, the left does do that too. Some of them are still waiting, 2 elections later.
This was in the run up to the 2012 elections. Do you get that? Obama's administration actively suppressed the ability of citizens to organize opposition to his reelection campaign.
So, your response to "Why is Slashdot so biased?" is that you didn't even read the piece being discussed. Brilliant!
And now that you've been shamed into reading it, you are pretending that it doesn't say what it clearly says, and responding to things that no one said. Double brilliant!
You clearly didn't read the summary. It skipped over the fig leaf and jumped almost directly into all of the ways that you and your roads are killing the planet.
You are living in a fantasy. If there was evidence, we'd have heard about it by now. Instead, all of the evidence that we have heard of is pointing in the other direction.
Wikileaks says that the DNC emails were leaked, not hacked. Their source policy won't let them name anyone, but either it was Seth Rich, or Julian is using Seth Rich as misdirection to protect the life of the real leaker.
Not very long ago, the VPN provider that owns the IPs in question said that no American law enforcement had contacted them.
No one believes that Russia hacked the auto-pilot on Hillary's jet to make it fly to fundraisers on the coasts instead of campaigning in the flyover states she needed, but lost.
That incident where she was chucked into a van like a side of beef was probably not the result of hacking, but without knowing more about her implanted/wearable medical electronics, we may never know for sure.
Virtually the entire former news media was acting as an arm of the Clinton campaign. Unless Russia's hacking technology has progressed from computers to people, that can't possibly be the result of hacking.
Is the weather nice on your planet?
For a narcissist, it is a semi-dichotomy. There is no option A, no option C, D or E. Just option B - "The Russians did it."
Please note that narcissism means "I'm the star of the movie".
In option A, Obama is the second act villain in a movie is about the American people. In the option C that someone else posted here, Obama is a few seconds of "mood" background in the opening sequence of a movie about Trump overcoming a powerful but strangely incompetent opponent.
In option B, Obama's third act challenge is a vast conspiracy of shadowy powers from across the globe, united to take down the wise and noble leader,
(If you don't understand the meaning of "second act" and "third act", look to the original Star Wars trilogy. The first act introduces the major characters, gives the heroes a challenge to overcome. The second act puts those characters into the worst situation you can think of. If that is too much of a downer, the heroes defeat a minor villain, usually introduced just for this act and then never heard from again, but this victory doesn't change the dire situation. In the third act, the stars overcome incredible odds for total victory. There is usually, but not always, a big villain revealed in the third act.)
Oh, I almost forgot. Since it is $CURRENT_YEAR, I need to provide the meme version too. So, if the above was TL;DR, please see this concise summary instead.
Obama's options were:
A) Either his ideas and presidency were so bad that he personally drove the country to find and elect someone like Trump, or
B) The Russia-fairy hacked the election.
I'm shocked and amazed that he picked B. What's even more amazing is that all of his political appointees also picked B, while the career intelligence officers that work for them all appear to have picked A.
That's not the point. The photographers are already taking those risks. Usually just by being there. If you are a credible westerner and you see something awful, if that becomes known, you might have a hard time getting out of that area alive, even if you aren't carrying a camera.
This helps the people they are interviewing and taking pictures of, assuring them that the pictures or video won't fall into the wrong hands.
Why did a half dozen people think that the proper response to my rebuttal of the meme, was to repeat the exact same thing? When did "say it again, louder" become your only debate tactic? Did you all go to government-run schools?
I don't mean to single you out. I could literally paste this post as a reply to almost everyone that responded to my initial comment. Cryptography can't solve all of our problems, but there are actual, concrete situations when it can help. I get it that understanding the threats and trying to figure out real solutions is harder than regurgitating a meme, but come on.
For all of you quoting XKCD or talking about rubber hose cryptography, I have three words: Public Key Cryptography
There is no reason why a keypair can't be generated on a safe computer in a safe country and only the public key gets loaded into the camera, while the private key remains safe. The border people could still eat the memory card, and they could add new encrypted photos/videos to it using the public key, but they couldn't view old stuff.
You could even set the system up so that the encryption key gets encrypted twice, once with the NV public key, and once with a volatile key that gets erased after a few minutes, or at the press of a button. That way the photographer would have time to make sure they got the shot they wanted.
4 links to articles asserting that fossil fuels get subsidies, and the only subsidy actually named is, hilariously, the cap on liability for nuclear accidents. If you had doubts about the neutrality of Wikipedia before, ask yourself why that would be included in a section titled "Impact of fossil fuel subsidies".
One article also links to another article that mentions production expenses for drilling, and loss of value of a field. These may sound familiar to people who have ever done business taxes, because similar deductions are available to most businesses. Also listed in that article are generic tax breaks available to all or most businesses.
I have never in my life referred to an email as "illegitimate". Not talking to bumpkins, not to construction workers, not to tradesmen, not to policemen, not to soldiers, not to doctors, not to lawyers, not to elected officials. Not to my employees, not to my bosses, not to CEOs, not to directors. Not to teenagers, not to millennials, not to adults, not to boomers, not to octogenarians.
However, I use the phrases "That's spam, delete it." and "Fake, trash it." damn near every day.
I haven't been around the world and seen everything, but I've seen a lot, and I've never met or heard of a group or demographic that would consider that phrasing normal.
There are times when spinning a tall tail to cover your ego is appropriate, and times when it is not. There are also good lies and bad lies. This one was pretty bad, and at a time when he's got a sizable fraction of the world looking in his direction. A better lie, and one that every single IT professional and talented amateur in the world would have believed completely, would have been: "I'm sorry, I was about to check the headers and I got distracted by a phone call / person walking into my office. When I got back to it, I had lost my place and mistakenly thought that I had checked when I hadn't."
Before pointing out the big obvious problem with that idea, I'll pause for a moment so that you can go check the links in some of your legitimate email. After you've had a bit of time to sob quietly, if you are again feeling brave, check the relay paths and senders of some of that crap.
Oh, and also some of us run our own mail services, but we generally know better than to click links in emails.
TL; DR version: Thanks for the cheap shares, chumps.
Not minor edits, and not a prank.
He did this to a thread linked up by a big newspaper article that drew lots of attention. He specifically edited posts that many people were going to see, and he edited them to make them look like the users of The_Donald hated the mods of The_Donald and thought they were crazy.
This was not him blowing off steam. This was not a harmless prank. This was a calculated and planned attempt to discredit, divide and slander a large group with political opinions that he doesn't like.
It is too late for me to dig through these quotes to demoronize the unicode. I apologize, but slashdot is the real culprit.
Those are the actual quotes from the article. I see: fluff, fluff, fluff, fact, fact, prediction, fluff. Notice that the part about the all-white ethnostate isn't in quotes. That means that either Juju or Victoria wrote it, not Richard Spencer. Maybe he really feels that way, maybe he doesn't - but there is certainly no evidence along those lines here.
Now, I'm alt-right, but all that I know about Mr. Spencer comes from what I read here, and I think someone else that I read called him a clown once. Based on that, I'm going to say "attention whore" and "has the right enemies".
As a rule, I don't spend much time on attention whores. Right or wrong, their ideas, if they have any, are usually recycled from better thinkers and writers. On the other hand, when the press, the SPLC, and college students all universally hate someone, I figure they are worth looking at.
Also, when the press tells me that someone is a very bad man, but the important quotes are not from that man, but are about him, I start to wonder. Usually, that means that the press is in a panic about the ordinary and reasonable things he says, and not about the crazy things he may or may not think or say. By the way, this was Trump's last 18 months all over again. Endless hours of talking heads telling us that Trump is bad, no video of Trump actually being bad.
"Jarring UI experience"?
Seriously? When I ask for the next page, it is because I WANT TO READ THE NEXT PAGE, and not because I want to see how clever the scrolling animation is.
Also, key scrolling is a local browser function. Whether it is space or page down or META+wheel on the mouse or shaking your phone in just the right way, the browser is just jumping down the buffer a bit.
The problem is that the HTML specs provide a way to float crap on top, and ways to pin it to the top or bottom of the page, and also a hint to the browser that indicates how much reading space is covered by the crap, so that the browser knows how far to jump per page request. Lots of websites have the floaty crap, without the hint.
That's all that needs to happen. Web designers need to provide the height of the crap they are cluttering the page with, and they aren't. They aren't being asked to write special javascript to jump properly, they aren't being asked to write keyboard drivers, or layout engines. Just to include a hint about how much of the reading space their floaty crap is obscuring.
No. The assumption is that there is a higher risk of cancer associated with any radiation exposure, however small. And the "down to zero" part is really part of the current model, the so-called "no-threshold" part of Linear, no-threshold.
According to your "logic", the wisest thing we could possibly do is export and outsource ALL American jobs. Just imagine how rich we'd all be if none of us worked and nothing was produced here!
Wow, shocking. Four personal attacks and not one argument. If only something in the last 18 months or 18 years could have prepared me for this style of "debate".
Did I hit a nerve? Do you need a safe space?