Someday they will be put in a wall, no make up, no lights, no power ranger sets.. plain old soviet Russian wall >First plane to the face and make them ONE BY ONE admit that they have been deceiving and misinforming the people, and they have to apologize and leave for ever
I'm sure if Russia had won the cold war that's what would have happened to US journalists that didn't toe the party line, but I can't see how anyone could think that was a good thing.
Could this be the Aurora, the "triangular shaped" airplane with the "donuts on a rope" contrail that various people have reported seeing over the years? (I saw something on discovery channel about it)
No, they're dumb. Fox News was unable to find people who could act dumb, so now they just hire people who really, (really, really) are dumb.
From my extensive corporate background, I can tell you that if somebody that has been hired acts dumb, he's usually dumber than he seems; all a matter of cost efficiency, a smart guy acting dumb would cost between twice and three times as much, and you'd risk him saying clever things once in a while anyway.
I dunno though. I used to post on politics where people used to post things like
"Everything I needed to know about the Middle East I learned on 9/12 when I listed to Jackyl's song 'Open Invitation' and got drunk on Budweiser with my buddies"
(fuck yeah, BTW)
But when I went to meet up with some of them they were all expert internet trolls and quite well read. None of them would dream of drinking Budweiser or listening to Jackyl. All of them had gone to college.
And it's quite possible that Fox just exists to make liberals rage and conservatives laugh. The head of Fox said that the "Fair and balanced" slogan was adopted because "it drives liberals wild".
The fact is that liberals have control of the networks - I saw poll that showed essentially all journalists at CNN, ABC, CBS etc vote for the Democrats.
So a right wing troll minority network trolling the majority was pretty much inevitable.
Often being laid off is a necessary kick up the backside to make you go for something better. Paying people to fill cups is no better than paying people to spin cotton when there is technology to do it. It may hurt in the short term, but who today wants to go back to working in cotton mills?
So if your boss told you that all jobs of your type were going to be outsourced you'd thank him for the kick up the backside to make you get something better?
LOL! Why don't you go and punch your boss right now if getting fired would be so great.
Then maybe a higher minimum wage will eliminate a lot of pointless jobs, so people can do something more useful. If it wasn't for an increase in minimum wage, maybe that guy would still be there filling cups up.
No one forced him to take the job, but if the job is eliminated he is being forced to leave it. Isn't it better for everyone that he's filling cups than getting fired and claiming welfare?
Why do you think minimum wage laws and unions were formed in the first place?
"The last year in which the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate in the United States was 1930. The next year, the first federal minimum wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act, was passed. One of its sponsors explicitly stated that the purpose was to keep blacks from taking jobs from whites. No one says things like that any more - which is a shame, because the effect of a minimum wage law does not depend on what anybody says. Blacks in general, and younger blacks in particular, are the biggest losers from such laws, just as younger and minority workers are in Europe." -- Thomas Sowell
Actually I suspect labour rights in general tend to have this effect, that they priviege the 'in group' in society and hurt the 'out group'.
Consider a country with at will employment and no minimum wage. Immigrants will be able to take low pay insecure jobs and compete with the locals. The immigrants will tend to integrate too.
Now if you introduce the minmum wage and job security it makes employers think harder about hiring people. This will hit immigrants much harder than it hits people who are more established in the job market. This is not because recent immigrants are worse people, more that employers are less likely to trust them than someone they share a background with.
If you look at somewhere like France or Sweden, both of which have cultures which tend to make it very hard to fire someone and where employees have extensive rights, they both have very high unemployments rates amongst immigrants. The USA with its tradition that employees can be fired rather easily does much better - immigrants tend to find jobs and integrate.
It's rather ironic of course, since people in favour of labour rights tend to be in favour of rights for immigrants. But if you compare more socialist/social democratic countries to capitalist ones it is striking that the socialist countries are actually caste based society where the people in the secure jobs tend to be native born and the unemployed tend to be immigrants.
If you measure societies' ability to integrate immigrants socialist countries actually do much worse than capitalist ones. The problem is made worse actually by the idea that immigrants have a right to come to these countries as asylum seekers which socialist countries tend to regard as something only racists question. Letting in large numbers of people who have no chance of integrating is dangerous, I think it caused the riots in Paris. Plausibly somewhere like Malmo in Sweden could have the same problem.
Are there deserts in India? I'm sure there aren't any in Romania.
There aren't any desserts in Romania either. Communist dictator Nicolae Ceauescu labelled desserts bourgeois and counter revolutionary. Recipe books were burned and the chefs executed. Fat people were hounded through the streets by mobs chanting "WHO ATE ALL THE CAKE? WHO ATE ALL THE CAKE?"
From TFA: The prototypical "enemy" of the twenty-first century is an urban guerilla who is mobile, adaptive, and draws his strength and resources primarily from the indigenous population. (emphasis mine)
If the prototypical enemy of the US these days is backed by the indigenous population, then the US is not "liberating" anyone.
If you read about how guerillas work, they are a bit like gangs. They use straight up intimidation, like massacring villages who defy them. But they are more insidious than that. Some civillians may appease them as a way to rationalizing not defying them. But it's not like people back them. When guerilla organizations compete in elections without intimidation, they poll very poorly.
Imagine being in a fire fight and an IM window pops up on your HUD. That would really anger me. Yeah, but you have an automatic rifle. Maybe RAGE is good. In the future soldiers will watch RAGE pics on their head up displays while they fight.
I was CJTF-82's Knowledge Management NCOIC for OEF 8.
What, in the name of sanity, is that supposed to mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CJTF-76
Combined Joint Task Force - 82 (CJTF-82) was a US led subordinate formation of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). It served as both the National Command Element for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, reporting directly to the Commander, United States Central Command, and as ISAF's Regional Command East. It was replaced by Combined Joint Task Force - 101 (CJTF-101) in early April of 2008 [1].
The designation Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge, usually abbreviated to NCOIC (or NCO I/C), signifies an individual in the enlisted ranks of a military unit who has limited command authority over others in the unit.
Ah, a false dichotomy. A military refusing orders is hardly the same thing as a military that controls civilians. Have fun with that empty rhetoric. Not really. Bush is elected. He ordered the military to invade Iraq. Civilian control over the military dictates that they have to do it. America has more serious enemies than Saddam and they would be emboldened if the military were not under civilian control. Soldiers not under control are a threat to a free society themselves too.
A future adminstration has to decide whether to keep the soldiers there or not, not the soldiers.
There isn't magical chemical crack in crack either. Just because using cocaine (or its freebase form - crack) is pleasurable, doesn't mean it has some conscious-hijacking compulsive prowess, DEA brainwashing to the contrary aside. Just like with the WoW example, people who become addicted to drugs are those who already suffer from existing psychological problems. If it weren't WoW, crack or heroin, it would be something else that supposedly screwed up their lives.
That's bullshit. I've known people who went from being quite pleasant to utter sociopaths within months of trying cocaine. Clearly coke was far more important to them than their relationship with anyone they knew.
Slashdot Mirror
1) They knew that it was an intentional troll
Well that would be no fun. You can always install irony/sarcasm detectors in your browser if you're overally literally minded.
http://www.buymybook.co.uk/irony_detector.htm
Someday they will be put in a wall, no make up, no lights, no power ranger sets.. plain old soviet Russian wall >First plane to the face and make them ONE BY ONE admit that they have been deceiving and misinforming the people, and they have to apologize and leave for ever
I'm sure if Russia had won the cold war that's what would have happened to US journalists that didn't toe the party line, but I can't see how anyone could think that was a good thing.
They are nothing like a piston engine
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/pde.shtml
http://www.seas.ucla.edu/combustion/projects/pulsed_detonation_wave.html
Could this be the Aurora, the "triangular shaped" airplane with the "donuts on a rope" contrail that various people have reported seeing over the years? (I saw something on discovery channel about it)
Yup, I think so
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_aircraft#Steven_Douglas_sighting
No, they're dumb. Fox News was unable to find people who could act dumb, so now they just hire people who really, (really, really) are dumb.
From my extensive corporate background, I can tell you that if somebody that has been hired acts dumb, he's usually dumber than he seems; all a matter of cost efficiency, a smart guy acting dumb would cost between twice and three times as much, and you'd risk him saying clever things once in a while anyway.
I dunno though. I used to post on politics where people used to post things like
"Everything I needed to know about the Middle East I learned on 9/12 when I listed to Jackyl's song 'Open Invitation' and got drunk on Budweiser with my buddies"
(fuck yeah, BTW)
But when I went to meet up with some of them they were all expert internet trolls and quite well read. None of them would dream of drinking Budweiser or listening to Jackyl. All of them had gone to college.
And it's quite possible that Fox just exists to make liberals rage and conservatives laugh. The head of Fox said that the "Fair and balanced" slogan was adopted because "it drives liberals wild".
The fact is that liberals have control of the networks - I saw poll that showed essentially all journalists at CNN, ABC, CBS etc vote for the Democrats.
So a right wing troll minority network trolling the majority was pretty much inevitable.
Often being laid off is a necessary kick up the backside to make you go for something better. Paying people to fill cups is no better than paying people to spin cotton when there is technology to do it. It may hurt in the short term, but who today wants to go back to working in cotton mills?
So if your boss told you that all jobs of your type were going to be outsourced you'd thank him for the kick up the backside to make you get something better?
LOL! Why don't you go and punch your boss right now if getting fired would be so great.
I tried it by the S character looks like a $.
If you give the Americans a buy option on Canadian oil shales, they'll probably come and liberate you.
Maybe Asparagus is Pod People gone wrong. Melkurised in fact.
Then maybe a higher minimum wage will eliminate a lot of pointless jobs, so people can do something more useful. If it wasn't for an increase in minimum wage, maybe that guy would still be there filling cups up.
No one forced him to take the job, but if the job is eliminated he is being forced to leave it. Isn't it better for everyone that he's filling cups than getting fired and claiming welfare?
Mod parent up. Arguing is not trolling.
"The last year in which the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate in the United States was 1930. The next year, the first federal minimum wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act, was passed. One of its sponsors explicitly stated that the purpose was to keep blacks from taking jobs from whites. No one says things like that any more - which is a shame, because the effect of a minimum wage law does not depend on what anybody says. Blacks in general, and younger blacks in particular, are the biggest losers from such laws, just as younger and minority workers are in Europe." -- Thomas Sowell
Actually I suspect labour rights in general tend to have this effect, that they priviege the 'in group' in society and hurt the 'out group'.
Consider a country with at will employment and no minimum wage. Immigrants will be able to take low pay insecure jobs and compete with the locals. The immigrants will tend to integrate too.
Now if you introduce the minmum wage and job security it makes employers think harder about hiring people. This will hit immigrants much harder than it hits people who are more established in the job market. This is not because recent immigrants are worse people, more that employers are less likely to trust them than someone they share a background with.
If you look at somewhere like France or Sweden, both of which have cultures which tend to make it very hard to fire someone and where employees have extensive rights, they both have very high unemployments rates amongst immigrants. The USA with its tradition that employees can be fired rather easily does much better - immigrants tend to find jobs and integrate.
It's rather ironic of course, since people in favour of labour rights tend to be in favour of rights for immigrants. But if you compare more socialist/social democratic countries to capitalist ones it is striking that the socialist countries are actually caste based society where the people in the secure jobs tend to be native born and the unemployed tend to be immigrants.
If you measure societies' ability to integrate immigrants socialist countries actually do much worse than capitalist ones. The problem is made worse actually by the idea that immigrants have a right to come to these countries as asylum seekers which socialist countries tend to regard as something only racists question. Letting in large numbers of people who have no chance of integrating is dangerous, I think it caused the riots in Paris. Plausibly somewhere like Malmo in Sweden could have the same problem.
Not necessarily. You could charge £20 to do it yourself, or £10 to outsource it but still guarantee it would be done.
Or charge £20 and pay £5 to get the work done
Are there deserts in India? I'm sure there aren't any in Romania.
There aren't any desserts in Romania either. Communist dictator Nicolae Ceauescu labelled desserts bourgeois and counter revolutionary. Recipe books were burned and the chefs executed. Fat people were hounded through the streets by mobs chanting "WHO ATE ALL THE CAKE? WHO ATE ALL THE CAKE?"
...by this?From TFA: The prototypical "enemy" of the twenty-first century is an urban guerilla who is mobile, adaptive, and draws his strength and resources primarily from the indigenous population. (emphasis mine)
If the prototypical enemy of the US these days is backed by the indigenous population, then the US is not "liberating" anyone.
If you read about how guerillas work, they are a bit like gangs. They use straight up intimidation, like massacring villages who defy them. But they are more insidious than that. Some civillians may appease them as a way to rationalizing not defying them. But it's not like people back them. When guerilla organizations compete in elections without intimidation, they poll very poorly.What, in the name of sanity, is that supposed to mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CJTF-76 Combined Joint Task Force - 82 (CJTF-82) was a US led subordinate formation of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). It served as both the National Command Element for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, reporting directly to the Commander, United States Central Command, and as ISAF's Regional Command East. It was replaced by Combined Joint Task Force - 101 (CJTF-101) in early April of 2008 [1].
CJTF-82 was headquartered at Bagram Airfield.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Commissioned_Officer_in_Charge Non-Commissioned Officer in ChargeThe designation Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge, usually abbreviated to NCOIC (or NCO I/C), signifies an individual in the enlisted ranks of a military unit who has limited command authority over others in the unit.
OEF8 is Operation Enduring Freedom 8 presumably.Naah, it's much cooler than that. On Future Weapons some army guy said "we can out lethal steel on target in [some short time]"
A future adminstration has to decide whether to keep the soldiers there or not, not the soldiers.
Maybe the submitter is Swedish.
They should attach chain guns to the swiveling AI cameras.
In b4 "I for one welcome <chain gun firing sounds, screams, silence>"
There isn't magical chemical crack in crack either. Just because using cocaine (or its freebase form - crack) is pleasurable, doesn't mean it has some conscious-hijacking compulsive prowess, DEA brainwashing to the contrary aside. Just like with the WoW example, people who become addicted to drugs are those who already suffer from existing psychological problems. If it weren't WoW, crack or heroin, it would be something else that supposedly screwed up their lives.
That's bullshit. I've known people who went from being quite pleasant to utter sociopaths within months of trying cocaine. Clearly coke was far more important to them than their relationship with anyone they knew.Excellent!
YOU WILL OBEY ME!