Trump is doing a magnificent job. One of the all-time great brains. His tough talk has really put Kim Jong-un in his place.
The Obama administration had 8 years to do something better, and they didn't get it done. After 10 months the Trump administration already has far more rigorous sanctions in place than the Obama administration accomplished, and Trump's team did it with the United Nations and diplomacy, including diplomacy with allied nations. That must be a bitter pill to swallow.
Very few people like war, including the dropping bombs part. You don't seem to have a useful understanding of the conflicts involving either Iraq or Libya. North Korea has been pursuing nuclear technology for weapons since the 1950s. Your views are not to be trusted.
In the early 1950s, North Korea began developing the institutional capability to train personnel for its nuclear program. In December 1952, the government established the Atomic Energy Research Institute and the Academy of Sciences, but nuclear work only began to progress when North Korea established cooperative agreements with the Soviet Union. [2] Pyongyang signed the founding charter of the Soviet Union's Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in February 1956, and began to send scientists and technicians to the USSR for training shortly thereafter. In 1959, North Korea and the Soviet Union signed an agreement on the peaceful use of nuclear energy that included a provision for Soviet help to establish a nuclear research complex in Yongbyon, North Pyongan Province. [3]
In the early 1960s, the Soviet Union provided extensive technical assistance to North Korea in constructing the Yongbyon Nuclear Research Center, which included the installation of a Soviet IRT-2000 nuclear research reactor and associated facilities. North Korea used this small research reactor to produce radioisotopes and to train personnel. [4] Although the cabinet and the Academy of Sciences were given operational and administrative oversight of the nuclear facilities, then-North Korean leader Kim Il Sung retained ultimate control of the nuclear program and all decisions associated with weapons development.
. . . Reportedly, Kim Il Sung asked Beijing to share its nuclear weapons technology following China's first nuclear test in October 1964, but Chinese leader Mao Zedong refused. [5] In any case, shortly thereafter, North Korean relations with China began to deteriorate.
Oh yeah, that has Iraq and Libya written all over it!
Speaking of which, anyone else find it funny that the same folks who tell you gov't can't do anything right also tell you gov't can't be allowed to compete with private business because it would be unfair? What are they afraid of, the gov't's just gonna fail anyway, right?
Governments can sell items below cost and make up the difference in taxes. Government has little incentive to control costs since ultimately they can tax. Government can mandate that you purchase only from them. Lots of other issues too.
I doubt there is more than a little chance of that over time. He is far enough on the Left to regularly defend the horror show that is North Korea including stating, more or less verbatim that, "It's not so bad."
You seem to have a distorted view of what goes on in the United States at times, including this issue. The US has a full range of public assistance programs although they can be structured differently than in Europe.
One unfortunate aspect of some of these programs, together or in isolation is that they can trap people in poverty due to the incentives they create that make progress difficult.
As far as job creation and enterprises go, there are lots of things that can go on. In general they tend to not hire unneeded people, but "need" is sometimes squishy unless times are very tight, and is subject to being redefined based on experience. And that is before you get to interns, charity, and so on. Sometimes the charity is in who gets hired as opposed to creating a job that isn't strictly and completely needed.
Don't you think it is problematic when the government is hiding facts from the public? Including for the purpose of political manipulation and the prevention of the discussion of public policy based on the facts?
Of course some things are more difficult to hide than others.
As quoted above: " 2006-2015 there was a 40 percent increase in the number of reported rapes"
Do you think Sweden's population increased by that much over 9 years? Do you think the behavior of native Swedes changed that much in 9 years? Or could something else be going on? No doubt you'll continue to be baffled.
Is this something that normally happens here...a person willfully misinterprets another's argument, then advances points that have little or nothing to do with what was actually being discussed?
Fairly common, yes, and you're doing a splendid job of it too. The appeal to emotion is a "nice" extra touch on your part.
... by watching US "mainstream media".
I like that you put mainstream media in quotes. Study after study shows that the typical newsroom is 80-90% "progressive"/Democrat. That would be fine except it seems to lead to a skewing of reporting on stories.
More and more stories intended to gin up anger, hatred and fear in the US population with respect to a prospective target means greater and greater chances that the US will attack.
This is where you go completely off the rails. Apparently in your mind one cannot approach matters of foreign policy on a rational basis based of facts. No! The only thing in the media is manipulation! One question though, what evidence do you have that the actual intent is to do as you write: "stories intended to gin up anger, hatred and fear in the US population "? Any? Probably not because that isn't what happened.
Lets look at North Korea. North Korea is still in a state of war with the allied powers. There was only a ceasefire agreed to decades ago, not a peace treaty. North Korea has now stated that the ceasefire agreement is void. They have repeated announced their intention of striking the United States, are building and testing ICBMs, and detonating nuclear weapons. They seem to have succeeded in creating a thermonuclear weapon, an H-bomb. They have shot their missiles over Japan more than once. Is informing the public of these facts "intended to gin up anger, hatred and fear" by the media? No. So how would you handle it? Not tell them at all?
For example, in the run-up to the second invasion of Iraq,...
And what was the "first invasion" of Iraq? Operation Desert Storm, the continuation of UN Security Council authorized actions to remove Iraq of the nation of Kuwait, which Iraq had wrongly invaded and annexed. Is that something you can acknowledge?
For example, in the run-up to the second invasion of Iraq, news and public affairs shows like "Meet the Press", "Face the Nation" and such featured nearly 300 interviews with "experts" who favoured some kind of military action in Iraq. Only three interviews were conducted with people who were unabashedly against any kind of intervention.
Even if we assume that to be true, which I doubt, all that it really shows is that there was widespread support, which there was, for military action as a final measure against Saddam's Iraq after its long history of non-compliance, aggression, and corruption. Add on top of that Saddam's gamble about having his government act as if they still had WMD to fool the Iranians backfired. Oh, and here is the kicker, until at least recently there were still warehouses in Iraq with chemical weapons (WMDs) in them, and ISIS may have captured some.
Did you really not know this?
It seems I know more about it than you, and I'm not misguided by fringe ideology.
People who use guns to defend against robbery and aggravated assault are less likely to be injured than people who use other means, or no means, of self-defense.
A survey of felons for the federal government found that 40 percent had not committed one or more crimes because they feared that their prospective victims were armed. Thirty-four percent had been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim.
“Hot burglaries,” in which criminals invade homes while home dwellers are present, are much less common in the United States, where many people have guns, than in England, where most people don’t have guns.
There is little if any connection between the wealth of any particular wealthy person and the daily struggle of the typical poor person or family. Sudden wealth bestowed on poor people doesn't tend to make their problems go away for very long. The typical lottery winner is poor again within a few years.
As far as I have seen there are very few people that have complaints about the simple existence of aid programs. There are many complaints about badly structured one, unsustainable ones, ones that are subject to waste, fraud, or abuse, or that create perverse incentives that ultimately harm the participants.
As far as job creation goes, your thinking doesn't really account for many types of startup companies. They are developing a product and have nothing to sell. There is no direct income to be gained by adding employees as there is in an established company that is expanding. The only way many startup companies get the product created is to hire staff and do the development work. Then, maybe a couple of years later they may make big money based on their product. Now if the people that signed on to that company become rich, how is that stealing from someone that was a high school dropout that is sweeping floors in the school across town?
Job creating entrepreneurs aren't a myth, you just don't like the idea. I don't think it sits well with your socio-economic views and the role of the state. On the other hand I know several people that have created a number of companies that grew to employ hundreds of people.
The point was to show the potential for violence by mobs.
But now you've raised a question: in your mind, gangs attacking with hammers and bats can be relied on to do little or no harm? You think there was never the potential for deadly violence - death by hammer, by beating? Is that a bet you would make ahead of time if you were the intended victim?
You seem to not be able to imagine an intended victim defending himself with a firearm, only criminals imposing violence on the innocent victim. Intended victims use firearms to defend themselves successfully with regularity in the US, as in this case. There are many, many others.
I'd also be very sceptical of everything the Gatestone Institute reports - quite apart from their political bias, it should be a warning that they run advertisments that promise beautiful Russian women who just want to take your out, and presumable sell you thousand's of iPhone 8s for only US$1 per piece....
If you're seeing "advertisments that promise beautiful Russian women..." at the Gatestone Institute, which I doubt, it is probably due to the profile the advertising services have for you, not what the Gatestone Institute selects and presents. You fancy Russian women much?
And really, it isn't a question of you disliking "bias", but their viewpoint. They are discussing questions of fact and what they mean.
It's always a bit sad if people believe their own propaganda.
I often enjoy the ironic.
There are many reasons why the rate of reported rapes in Sweden is high. But as far as we can tell, an unusually high incident of rape as defined in other countries is not among them. Sweden has a much more expansive definition of rape, a different definition of what count as a single incident of rape, a very comprehensive collection and reporting system, and a very low cultural bar to reporting rape.
The problem with your claim that there are significant increases purely in a Swedish context.
Looking at rape by itself, from 2006-2015 there was a 40 percent increase in the number of reported rapes. It is true that the number of rapes declined from 2014 to 2015, from a high of 6,697 to a still-high 5,918; but, even so, the overall upward trend is clear.
Other Swedes, namely Ingrid Carlqvist and Lars Hedegaard, argue these trends are much sharper if one takes a longer view:
In 1975, the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the former homogeneous Sweden into a multicultural country. Forty years later the dramatic consequences of this experiment emerge: violent crime has increased by 300%.
If one looks at the number of rapes, however, the increase is even worse. In 1975, 421 rapes were reported to the police; in 2014, it was 6,620. That is an increase of 1,472%.
Why would I want to have more money? To watch a number on my bank account get bigger? Somehow I fail to see the appeal of that.
Well, there is always altruism, charitable giving to help people in need, villages that lack fresh water, people that suffer from disease, starvation, etc... What about donating to maintain academic freedom? Freedom of conscience? Or do you fail to see the appeal or purpose of any of that?
Also, and I don't expect you to understand that, I don't give a shit about money.
That isn't so hard to understand*, I'm not particularly materialistic myself. But how about "the rich"? Aren't you one of the people around here that complains about them?
Slashdot is full of people that like to code, build things, hack hardware. It is what gets them going. One thing that a lot of people on Slashdot miss, or get wrong, is not realizing that there are people that feel like that about building companies, doing business deals, creating jobs and so on. In some ways it is a similar mindset in a very different setting. There are brilliant jerks like Linus here and there, but there are also good people too that are doing something useful.
*Not like "atheism" is "hard" to understand. I still can't believe you tried that line on me.
Well, you have to admit, nobody really bothered defending the important ones that protect your freedom and privacy, but the one that can actually backfire gets defended like it's the only important one.
That is kinda odd, don't you think?
It would be odd if it were true, but it isn't, . . . at least for the United States. In fact it is a load of utter rubbish. Or are you really going to try to claim that you've never heard of civil liberties organizations like the ACLU, EFF, Alliance Defending Freedom, The FIRE,.... Or are you referring to something else?
Europe and Canada certainly seems to believe free speech can backfire, hence there are many restrictions. Was that what you were referring to?
Now, watch the news. If you start seeing more and more of these kind of stories about scary things NK is doing that's when you start worrying, because it means our media is gearing us up for war with them. Go look back at media coverage before Iraq/Afghanistan if you doubt me.
So, in your mind, the coverage of North Korea has nothing to do with the fact that they are building and testing ICBMs (including shooting them over other counties), exploding nuclear weapons including thermonuclear weapons (AKA hydrogen bombs), threatening the first atmospheric nuclear weapons test in decades, and have explicitly and repeatedly stated that they intend to attack and destroy the United States? And you refer to "these kind of stories about scary things NK is doing" as if there is no genuine reason for concern?
Doubt you? How could that even be possible?
Shouldn't the media in a democracy at least make a token effort if a self-declared enemy nation at war with you states their credible intent to destroy your country and effectively end your civilization? Might the voters have some interest in that?
The fact that we can read stories about it means NK isn't very good at it.
If they got the data they wanted then they are pretty good at it. If they succeeded in ransomware attacks they are pretty good at it. If they succeeded in a denial of service attack then they are pretty good at it. News reports suggest they are pretty successful.
When they find out, in our first year, we are going to do $1.2 to $1.3 million dollars, that makes people sit up,” says Mark X. Cronin. “Which I would suggest is pretty good for a startup.”
You... you really believe that one can get rich by working?
Hey, folks, gather 'round, I found the dupe that still believes the "American Dream"!
It seems that among the disadvantages of being an apparently Marxist leaning nihilist is the many extra opportunities it provides to be wrong on so many things on so many levels.
The problem I see . . . is folks flagging stuff as 'controversial' because they disagree with it. Lots of the left wing channels got flagged. But even some science channels got flagged by the anti-climate change folks and the 'intelligent design' crowd.
On one hand I would say it generally isn't right to do that. On the other, my heart bleeds for them. I mean, it's not like the left wing goes out of its way to abuse,... well...
Now, thanks to filings in a federal lawsuit in Ohio, there is such a list, with 426 names on it. And yes, it's top-heavy with conservative groups:
— 62 had Tea Party or Tea Party Patriots in the name
— a additional 14 had Patriots in the name
— 30 groups had 9/12 or Liberty in the name (9/12 refers to groups inspired by conservative television personality Glenn Beck)
In all, 282 conservative groups were on the IRS list, about two-thirds of the total number of groups that got additional scrutiny.
The list also has 67 progressive organizations (16 percent of the total) and 21 nonpartisan civic groups, including three League of Women Voters chapters.
The IRS took a hard look at Friends of Abe, a group for Hollywood conservatives, and at five state chapters of Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition. But also at LULAC (the League of Latin American Citizens), seven state groups with Progress in their names and two Occupy groups.
The Deerfield Beach, Fla., chapter of the National Council of Jewish Women caught the agency's eye. So did the National Federation of Independent Business and a group recorded simply as The Institute. Thirty-two groups couldn't be identified
The regulation of carbon emissions was already reviewed and ruled on by SCOTUS in 2005.
The EPAâ(TM)s authority to regulate greenhouse gases stems from the Supreme Courtâ(TM)s 2005 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. In this case, the Court decided that, contrary to the opinion of the Bush EPA, carbon dioxide and other GHGs qualified as âoepollutantsâ subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. This gave the EPA the power â" and, for all practical purposes, the obligation â" to regulate GHGs under the CAA.
There seems to be some disagreement about that claim.
. . . Notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, Massachusetts v. EPA did not require the agency to change its position; it only required the agency to demonstrate that whatever it chooses to do complies with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The Court stated that "[w]e need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding" and that "[w]e hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute."
Slashdot Mirror
Trump is doing a magnificent job. One of the all-time great brains. His tough talk has really put Kim Jong-un in his place.
The Obama administration had 8 years to do something better, and they didn't get it done. After 10 months the Trump administration already has far more rigorous sanctions in place than the Obama administration accomplished, and Trump's team did it with the United Nations and diplomacy, including diplomacy with allied nations. That must be a bitter pill to swallow.
Is the "magic" fading for you?
Very few people like war, including the dropping bombs part. You don't seem to have a useful understanding of the conflicts involving either Iraq or Libya. North Korea has been pursuing nuclear technology for weapons since the 1950s. Your views are not to be trusted.
1950s to 1960s: Early Developments
In the early 1950s, North Korea began developing the institutional capability to train personnel for its nuclear program. In December 1952, the government established the Atomic Energy Research Institute and the Academy of Sciences, but nuclear work only began to progress when North Korea established cooperative agreements with the Soviet Union. [2] Pyongyang signed the founding charter of the Soviet Union's Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in February 1956, and began to send scientists and technicians to the USSR for training shortly thereafter. In 1959, North Korea and the Soviet Union signed an agreement on the peaceful use of nuclear energy that included a provision for Soviet help to establish a nuclear research complex in Yongbyon, North Pyongan Province. [3]
In the early 1960s, the Soviet Union provided extensive technical assistance to North Korea in constructing the Yongbyon Nuclear Research Center, which included the installation of a Soviet IRT-2000 nuclear research reactor and associated facilities. North Korea used this small research reactor to produce radioisotopes and to train personnel. [4] Although the cabinet and the Academy of Sciences were given operational and administrative oversight of the nuclear facilities, then-North Korean leader Kim Il Sung retained ultimate control of the nuclear program and all decisions associated with weapons development.
. . . Reportedly, Kim Il Sung asked Beijing to share its nuclear weapons technology following China's first nuclear test in October 1964, but Chinese leader Mao Zedong refused. [5] In any case, shortly thereafter, North Korean relations with China began to deteriorate.
Oh yeah, that has Iraq and Libya written all over it!
Speaking of which, anyone else find it funny that the same folks who tell you gov't can't do anything right also tell you gov't can't be allowed to compete with private business because it would be unfair? What are they afraid of, the gov't's just gonna fail anyway, right?
Governments can sell items below cost and make up the difference in taxes. Government has little incentive to control costs since ultimately they can tax. Government can mandate that you purchase only from them. Lots of other issues too.
You even ponder this? - Why Communism Failed
I doubt there is more than a little chance of that over time. He is far enough on the Left to regularly defend the horror show that is North Korea including stating, more or less verbatim that, "It's not so bad."
That is a bit too far for even the Guardian.
Revealed: the gas chamber horror of North Korea's gulag
How low will you go?
You seem to have a distorted view of what goes on in the United States at times, including this issue. The US has a full range of public assistance programs although they can be structured differently than in Europe.
Poverty and the Social Welfare State in the United States and Other Nations
One unfortunate aspect of some of these programs, together or in isolation is that they can trap people in poverty due to the incentives they create that make progress difficult.
The Welfare Trap: Maze of Programs Punishes Work
How To Liberate America From The Poverty Trap That Is Enslaving Us
As far as job creation and enterprises go, there are lots of things that can go on. In general they tend to not hire unneeded people, but "need" is sometimes squishy unless times are very tight, and is subject to being redefined based on experience. And that is before you get to interns, charity, and so on. Sometimes the charity is in who gets hired as opposed to creating a job that isn't strictly and completely needed.
Maybe you would like to chew on this for a bit.
Swedish police admit race cover up on crime
This cover-up of sex assaults in Sweden is a gift for xenophobes
It’s not only Germany that covers up mass sex attacks by migrant men... Sweden’s record is shameful
Don't you think it is problematic when the government is hiding facts from the public? Including for the purpose of political manipulation and the prevention of the discussion of public policy based on the facts?
Of course some things are more difficult to hide than others.
Sweden gang rape ‘live-streamed on Facebook’
As quoted above: " 2006-2015 there was a 40 percent increase in the number of reported rapes"
Do you think Sweden's population increased by that much over 9 years? Do you think the behavior of native Swedes changed that much in 9 years? Or could something else be going on? No doubt you'll continue to be baffled.
Arrest records and victim's statements are pretty good at suggesting causation, no correlation needed.
Is this something that normally happens here...a person willfully misinterprets another's argument, then advances points that have little or nothing to do with what was actually being discussed?
Fairly common, yes, and you're doing a splendid job of it too. The appeal to emotion is a "nice" extra touch on your part.
... by watching US "mainstream media".
I like that you put mainstream media in quotes. Study after study shows that the typical newsroom is 80-90% "progressive"/Democrat. That would be fine except it seems to lead to a skewing of reporting on stories.
More and more stories intended to gin up anger, hatred and fear in the US population with respect to a prospective target means greater and greater chances that the US will attack.
This is where you go completely off the rails. Apparently in your mind one cannot approach matters of foreign policy on a rational basis based of facts. No! The only thing in the media is manipulation! One question though, what evidence do you have that the actual intent is to do as you write: "stories intended to gin up anger, hatred and fear in the US population "? Any? Probably not because that isn't what happened.
Lets look at North Korea. North Korea is still in a state of war with the allied powers. There was only a ceasefire agreed to decades ago, not a peace treaty. North Korea has now stated that the ceasefire agreement is void. They have repeated announced their intention of striking the United States, are building and testing ICBMs, and detonating nuclear weapons. They seem to have succeeded in creating a thermonuclear weapon, an H-bomb. They have shot their missiles over Japan more than once. Is informing the public of these facts "intended to gin up anger, hatred and fear" by the media? No. So how would you handle it? Not tell them at all?
For example, in the run-up to the second invasion of Iraq, ...
And what was the "first invasion" of Iraq? Operation Desert Storm, the continuation of UN Security Council authorized actions to remove Iraq of the nation of Kuwait, which Iraq had wrongly invaded and annexed. Is that something you can acknowledge?
For example, in the run-up to the second invasion of Iraq, news and public affairs shows like "Meet the Press", "Face the Nation" and such featured nearly 300 interviews with "experts" who favoured some kind of military action in Iraq. Only three interviews were conducted with people who were unabashedly against any kind of intervention.
Even if we assume that to be true, which I doubt, all that it really shows is that there was widespread support, which there was, for military action as a final measure against Saddam's Iraq after its long history of non-compliance, aggression, and corruption. Add on top of that Saddam's gamble about having his government act as if they still had WMD to fool the Iranians backfired. Oh, and here is the kicker, until at least recently there were still warehouses in Iraq with chemical weapons (WMDs) in them, and ISIS may have captured some.
Did you really not know this?
It seems I know more about it than you, and I'm not misguided by fringe ideology.
On the contrary, a landmine is an indiscriminate weapon, rifles, shotguns, and handguns are not even if they can be used indiscriminately.
More Guns, Less Crime
People who use guns to defend against robbery and aggravated assault are less likely to be injured than people who use other means, or no means, of self-defense.
A survey of felons for the federal government found that 40 percent had not committed one or more crimes because they feared that their prospective victims were armed. Thirty-four percent had been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim.
“Hot burglaries,” in which criminals invade homes while home dwellers are present, are much less common in the United States, where many people have guns, than in England, where most people don’t have guns.
There is little if any connection between the wealth of any particular wealthy person and the daily struggle of the typical poor person or family. Sudden wealth bestowed on poor people doesn't tend to make their problems go away for very long. The typical lottery winner is poor again within a few years.
Why do 70 percent of lottery winners end up bankrupt?
Government programs are not a panaceas, they can make problems worse:
President Obama Admits Welfare Encourages Dependency
As far as I have seen there are very few people that have complaints about the simple existence of aid programs. There are many complaints about badly structured one, unsustainable ones, ones that are subject to waste, fraud, or abuse, or that create perverse incentives that ultimately harm the participants.
As far as job creation goes, your thinking doesn't really account for many types of startup companies. They are developing a product and have nothing to sell. There is no direct income to be gained by adding employees as there is in an established company that is expanding. The only way many startup companies get the product created is to hire staff and do the development work. Then, maybe a couple of years later they may make big money based on their product. Now if the people that signed on to that company become rich, how is that stealing from someone that was a high school dropout that is sweeping floors in the school across town?
Job creating entrepreneurs aren't a myth, you just don't like the idea. I don't think it sits well with your socio-economic views and the role of the state. On the other hand I know several people that have created a number of companies that grew to employ hundreds of people.
The point was to show the potential for violence by mobs.
But now you've raised a question: in your mind, gangs attacking with hammers and bats can be relied on to do little or no harm? You think there was never the potential for deadly violence - death by hammer, by beating? Is that a bet you would make ahead of time if you were the intended victim?
Things could easily turn out different:
Gang of thugs beat man to death with baseball bats and flee the scene sparking huge manhunt
You seem to not be able to imagine an intended victim defending himself with a firearm, only criminals imposing violence on the innocent victim. Intended victims use firearms to defend themselves successfully with regularity in the US, as in this case. There are many, many others.
15-Year-Old Defends Sister From Burglars With AR-15 Rifle
Surprisingly it turns out that geese aren't the only thing that travel in flocks.
Hammer-wielding gang attack man in his own home in terrifying raid
Armed police swoop after 'gang with baseball bats' attack house in Moston
How well do you think your skull would hold up against a gang using hammers or a baseball bats?
I'd also be very sceptical of everything the Gatestone Institute reports - quite apart from their political bias, it should be a warning that they run advertisments that promise beautiful Russian women who just want to take your out, and presumable sell you thousand's of iPhone 8s for only US$1 per piece....
If you're seeing "advertisments that promise beautiful Russian women ..." at the Gatestone Institute, which I doubt, it is probably due to the profile the advertising services have for you, not what the Gatestone Institute selects and presents. You fancy Russian women much?
And really, it isn't a question of you disliking "bias", but their viewpoint. They are discussing questions of fact and what they mean.
It's always a bit sad if people believe their own propaganda.
I often enjoy the ironic.
There are many reasons why the rate of reported rapes in Sweden is high. But as far as we can tell, an unusually high incident of rape as defined in other countries is not among them. Sweden has a much more expansive definition of rape, a different definition of what count as a single incident of rape, a very comprehensive collection and reporting system, and a very low cultural bar to reporting rape.
The problem with your claim that there are significant increases purely in a Swedish context.
Yes, Violent Crime Has Spiked In Sweden Since Open Immigration
Looking at rape by itself, from 2006-2015 there was a 40 percent increase in the number of reported rapes. It is true that the number of rapes declined from 2014 to 2015, from a high of 6,697 to a still-high 5,918; but, even so, the overall upward trend is clear.
Other Swedes, namely Ingrid Carlqvist and Lars Hedegaard, argue these trends are much sharper if one takes a longer view:
In 1975, the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the former homogeneous Sweden into a multicultural country. Forty years later the dramatic consequences of this experiment emerge: violent crime has increased by 300%.
If one looks at the number of rapes, however, the increase is even worse. In 1975, 421 rapes were reported to the police; in 2014, it was 6,620. That is an increase of 1,472%.
Why would I want to have more money? To watch a number on my bank account get bigger? Somehow I fail to see the appeal of that.
Well, there is always altruism, charitable giving to help people in need, villages that lack fresh water, people that suffer from disease, starvation, etc... What about donating to maintain academic freedom? Freedom of conscience? Or do you fail to see the appeal or purpose of any of that?
Food For the Poor
BUY A GOAT FOR A FAMILY IN AFRICA
But working sure isn't the way to do it, which is easy to deduce by simple observation.
Simply working isn't the only part of it, you generally have to show some discipline and wisdom in how you handle your money.
Humble Teacher Shocks Community By Leaving $8.4 Million To Charity
A janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune and left most of it to his library and hospital
Also, and I don't expect you to understand that, I don't give a shit about money.
That isn't so hard to understand*, I'm not particularly materialistic myself. But how about "the rich"? Aren't you one of the people around here that complains about them?
Slashdot is full of people that like to code, build things, hack hardware. It is what gets them going. One thing that a lot of people on Slashdot miss, or get wrong, is not realizing that there are people that feel like that about building companies, doing business deals, creating jobs and so on. In some ways it is a similar mindset in a very different setting. There are brilliant jerks like Linus here and there, but there are also good people too that are doing something useful.
*Not like "atheism" is "hard" to understand. I still can't believe you tried that line on me.
Well, you have to admit, nobody really bothered defending the important ones that protect your freedom and privacy, but the one that can actually backfire gets defended like it's the only important one.
That is kinda odd, don't you think?
It would be odd if it were true, but it isn't, . . . at least for the United States. In fact it is a load of utter rubbish. Or are you really going to try to claim that you've never heard of civil liberties organizations like the ACLU, EFF, Alliance Defending Freedom, The FIRE, .... Or are you referring to something else?
Europe and Canada certainly seems to believe free speech can backfire, hence there are many restrictions. Was that what you were referring to?
Or was there some other set of "rights" or policies you think are backfiring? Take for instance:
Yes, Violent Crime Has Spiked In Sweden Since Open Immigration
Germany: Migrant Crime Spiked in 2016
Well, whatever you are babbling about seems popular. Its a load of bull, but popular bull, apparently.
Now, watch the news. If you start seeing more and more of these kind of stories about scary things NK is doing that's when you start worrying, because it means our media is gearing us up for war with them. Go look back at media coverage before Iraq/Afghanistan if you doubt me.
So, in your mind, the coverage of North Korea has nothing to do with the fact that they are building and testing ICBMs (including shooting them over other counties), exploding nuclear weapons including thermonuclear weapons (AKA hydrogen bombs), threatening the first atmospheric nuclear weapons test in decades, and have explicitly and repeatedly stated that they intend to attack and destroy the United States? And you refer to "these kind of stories about scary things NK is doing" as if there is no genuine reason for concern?
Doubt you? How could that even be possible?
Shouldn't the media in a democracy at least make a token effort if a self-declared enemy nation at war with you states their credible intent to destroy your country and effectively end your civilization? Might the voters have some interest in that?
The fact that we can read stories about it means NK isn't very good at it.
If they got the data they wanted then they are pretty good at it. If they succeeded in ransomware attacks they are pretty good at it. If they succeeded in a denial of service attack then they are pretty good at it. News reports suggest they are pretty successful.
North Korea 'hackers steal US-South Korea war plans'
Funny, but every time you talk about your job it never sounds like you're lounging on the dole and playing the lottery. I wonder why?
Well, I guess you're right, it IS too hard and unlikely for pretty much anyone to actually do well building their own business through hard work.
*cough* *cough*
Down syndrome entrepreneur builds success out of socks, shatters stereotypes
When they find out, in our first year, we are going to do $1.2 to $1.3 million dollars, that makes people sit up,” says Mark X. Cronin. “Which I would suggest is pretty good for a startup.”
What were we thinking?
You ... you really believe that one can get rich by working?
Hey, folks, gather 'round, I found the dupe that still believes the "American Dream"!
It seems that among the disadvantages of being an apparently Marxist leaning nihilist is the many extra opportunities it provides to be wrong on so many things on so many levels.
15 Inspirational Rags-To-Riches Stories
19 of the most inspiring rags-to-riches stories in business
11 rags-to-riches underdog success stories
Top 10 Rags-To-Riches Success Stories Of All Time
The UK's 13 most inspirational rags-to-riches entrepreneurs
Where are they now?
Stupid people cannot accept voices disagreeing with them, because they cannot grasp the idea that they may be wrong themselves.
I'm pretty sure it isn't just "stupid people" that are known to exhibit that trait.
The problem I see . . . is folks flagging stuff as 'controversial' because they disagree with it. Lots of the left wing channels got flagged. But even some science channels got flagged by the anti-climate change folks and the 'intelligent design' crowd.
On one hand I would say it generally isn't right to do that. On the other, my heart bleeds for them. I mean, it's not like the left wing goes out of its way to abuse, ... well ...
PragerU sues YouTube, Google for blacklisting its conservative educational videos
College melts down over plan for white people-free day on campus
Justice Department settles IRS lawsuits from 400 conservative groups claiming discrimination
Court Documents Show The IRS Focused Scrutiny On Conservative Groups
Now, thanks to filings in a federal lawsuit in Ohio, there is such a list, with 426 names on it. And yes, it's top-heavy with conservative groups:
— 62 had Tea Party or Tea Party Patriots in the name
— a additional 14 had Patriots in the name
— 30 groups had 9/12 or Liberty in the name (9/12 refers to groups inspired by conservative television personality Glenn Beck)
In all, 282 conservative groups were on the IRS list, about two-thirds of the total number of groups that got additional scrutiny.
The list also has 67 progressive organizations (16 percent of the total) and 21 nonpartisan civic groups, including three League of Women Voters chapters.
The IRS took a hard look at Friends of Abe, a group for Hollywood conservatives, and at five state chapters of Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition. But also at LULAC (the League of Latin American Citizens), seven state groups with Progress in their names and two Occupy groups.
The Deerfield Beach, Fla., chapter of the National Council of Jewish Women caught the agency's eye. So did the National Federation of Independent Business and a group recorded simply as The Institute. Thirty-two groups couldn't be identified
I could go on.
The regulation of carbon emissions was already reviewed and ruled on by SCOTUS in 2005.
The EPAâ(TM)s authority to regulate greenhouse gases stems from the Supreme Courtâ(TM)s 2005 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. In this case, the Court decided that, contrary to the opinion of the Bush EPA, carbon dioxide and other GHGs qualified as âoepollutantsâ subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. This gave the EPA the power â" and, for all practical purposes, the obligation â" to regulate GHGs under the CAA.
There seems to be some disagreement about that claim.
The EPA's Prudent Response to Massachusetts v. EPA
. . . Notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, Massachusetts v. EPA did not require the agency to change its position; it only required the agency to demonstrate that whatever it chooses to do complies with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The Court stated that "[w]e need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding" and that "[w]e hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute."
Is that so? There is no shortage of these types, even on Slashdot.
Atheism isn't particularly rational.
“Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative.” - G. K. Chesterton
Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
There seem to be a lot of atheists on Slashdot that are "certain." I take it you are among them? How did you arrive at that "certainty"?
I assume it based on containers.