The headline is literally a stab at Trump to make him look like an idiot for touching on something that's 17 years gone
First of all, stop using "literally" to mean "figuratively." Second of all...What?! The headline is just a plain fact. I don't like the guy, but you can't fault him for trying to delete regs he thinks are obsolete. You can argue that a thing isn't actually obsolete, but that's different. Nothing in the tone of the headline seems offensive to me, nor does it seem like Trump bashing. You could just as easily say it is too kind to the man, since it makes it sound like he found some great way to save the government a lot of money. (I don't take that reading either.) I find it funny when people who decry "snowflakes" take such offense at clearly neutral phrases.
You do see the difference in persuading somebody to vote against there best interest versus conning them out of thousands of dollars, right? And last time I checked, Hillary isn't president, and I didn't ever claim she was ethical. So you can GTFO with that red herring.
That is absolutely false. There are thousands of businesses in America run by ethical people who give a shit about their customers and don't try to con them out of money. If it were otherwise, why would so many companies try to keep their reputations on Google reviews as spotless as possible? True, there have always been successful cheaters, and there have always been ethical losers. But by-and-large most humans don't want to be an asshole. That's what makes Donald Trump such a stand out. He just cannot be shamed.
Then by all means, cherry pick some businesses he's been in that are completely above board. I welcome the information! It would be a blessing to know that the leader of the free world is NOT a vapid charlatan.
I think you're wrong on this one. You are conflating religion in general with whatever this thing we have in America can be called. It's not really religion any more than ISIS is a political party.
I am a Methodist (now). We believe science and education in general are important. We believe in individual liberties, so we tend to respect other people who don't share our beliefs. We also believe in helping others in need, protecting the resources God gave us, and practicing grace and forgiveness with our fellow man.
Nothing about my religion makes me act in a way that retards progress. Further, in respect to the arts, religion has historically encouraged progress, just look at anything from the Sistine Chapel to Sagrada Familia, from Praetorius to Messiaen. This could also be extended to historical religions, as well. Now, it's up for debate whether retarding progress, on the whole, is even something bad. But I'll take your premise at face value for now.
The problem, at least among Christians, is when they stray too far from the red letters. I tend to blame Paul for sowing the early seeds of what we have today. Sure he had some good points "there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Gentile, barbarian nor Scythian" (can't remember the exact quote and too lazy to look it up.) But he had some boneheaded ideas, too (especially about gender roles). He simultaneously claimed Jesus freed us from the old law, while making new proscriptions that were suspiciously like the Pentateuch.
Over the centuries, these competing ideals of love-and-mercy versus shame-and-guilt became ingrained in organized religion. These religions split and evolved and split and evolved. Each successive generation piling on stranger rules and intense emotional baggage. Arguably none of it was in keeping with a simple Nazarene who just wanted everybody to love one another.
Somehow all of this translated to a little boy in a border town being told he couldn't watch the Smurfs because they are demonic, but the scary-as-fuck "Thief in the Night" was required watching. Shortly this progressed to "pro-life" rallies where he was encouraged to verbally abuse girls who were looking for some help in a time of need. Then, after moving to even-more-"conservative" west Texas, the same kid was taken to a brainwashing session at a large church where the bombardier beetle was used as an argument against evolution. All of this was accompanied by years of shame for surviving sexual assault.
That kind of "religion" is a plague. It is organized hate-mongering designed to keep people in the pews giving money for fear of going to hell. They have little to nothing to do with the loving message they claim to hold dear. Then you have the likes of Creflo Dollar and Joel Osteen who may seem more loving, but they take their toll financially rather than emotionally. Little old ladies send in their last pension dollars as a "seed" that is more likely to fuel a supercar.
So I see where you are coming from. This thing we call "religion" in America has become pretty foul. But I don't think it's an immutable problem with religion per se. I think it has to do with imperfect humans doing a shitty job. It's like we took the Oatmeal "How to Suck at Your Religion" for a how-to article.
As an aside, I think most Americans would be horrified if they ever actually read the bible. It is distinctly "unamerican." Look at the original church in the book of Acts. These people were literally communists, in that they formed a commune. Also, I can guaran-damn-tee you that most "religious" Americans don't tithe. Don't even get me started on "If a man steals your shirt, give him your cloak, too."
This is one of the interesting features of most conspiracy features. "How come nobody is talking about XXXXX." The answers are normally, "They are, you just choose to ignore it" or "They aren't talking about it because it represents a worldview held by so few people, that nobody would even understand what they are talking about."
I don't bitch when the local news doesn't cover the installation of a new pipe organ in Polynesia with a rare type of reed stop. My wife doesn't complain when ABC doesn't do an expose on her phone's sudden failure to send emails. On the other hand, my son wants to know why nobody's talking about the fact that some kid traded him fake Pokemon cards. Is it because they are trying to hide something? Maybe they knew that kid had fake cards!
I guess conspiracy theorists just never grew up. A kid thinks, "People are not talking about what I think is important, therefore they must be against me personally." A well-rounded adult thinks, "People are not talking about this thing I think is important. They must have better things to do with their time. Maybe I can talk to some people and get their opinion about what's important to them." A typical American conspiracy theorist proclaims loudly, "The media isn't giving my flat-earth theory the air time it deserves, therefore Obama is a secret Muslim who is going to make me gay marry an illegal immigrant atheist."
I don't think "con artist" is name calling; it is just shorthand to describe his business habits to date. He convinces people to do things not in their best interest by lying to them. He puts on a good show and gets people to have confidence in him, and then produces zilch. Just look at Trump University, the Taj Mahal debacle, or the Trump Network (vitamins). None of has proven to be illegal (yet), but none of it was ethical. Hopefully he'll do better for we the people than he did for his previous clients and investors.
We accept the election results, as the inevitable incarnation of American narcissism, incompetence, and discourtesy. I've said all along that Trump was going to win because he's the president America deserves. We just want to make sure Russia knows to GTFO and let us elect our own idiots in peace.
I think B) hit the nail on the head. Obama, in his typically naive manner, probably thought the American people weren't a bunch of racist asshats. So he assumed Hillary would win, and saw no reason to cast aspersions on her win by sounding a public alarm that the hax0rz are trying to infiltrate state databases.
Ugh. Can you imagine? Think about how bad his whining is now. He wins, but still he claims the election was rigged by busloads of fake voters. Why?! Does he really believe that crap, or is he fucking with us? But if he had lost.... oh my god. The breitbart foxosphere would have been assploding with stupid.
The worst is the female minifig hair. Stepping on it activates an artificial intelligence routine that rotates the pokey-est part of the hair to the softest part of your foot. DARPA is investigating the technology to see if it could have wartime uses.
This is heresy, and I beg forgiveness from my fellow AFOLs. One of my favorite sets was actually the Mega Blocks mechanized warfare set. You could make tanks and other "modern warfare" machines. They were in olive drab and everything. I also liked that they had half-height plates, which gave a different feel to things. I made the mistake of offering these to somebody in a BrickLink forum. Nearly got banned from the site. LOL.
Legoland in Florida is some of the best bang for your buck of any theme park I can think of. Universal has better rides, but it's more expensive. Six Flags has longer lines, and no sense of exploration. EPCOT has the nerd factor, but is more expensive. Sea World doesn't have as many rides, and I don't like getting splashed with salt water.
I expressed my first amendment rights at the TSA checkpoint once. Missed my flight. Only got let go because I sang the national anthem at the top of my lungs while they were dicking around. They even had my cell phone blocked while I was at the airport.
Terrorist would be a lot less scary if we called them something else. Instead of "radical Islamic terrorist," we should start calling them "fake Muslim coward pigfuckers" or maybe "murder dicks" or "stinky loser pants" or "failed reality stars."
Makes me think of the King of the Hansa, in the Saga of Seven Suns. Although I only made it through the first three or four books. There we have a kid who was trained from an early age how to act kingly and inspire his citizens, while hiding the fact that the Chairman holds all the power. He tries to subversively wrest power from those who he feels do not have his people's best interest in mind.
Trump is like the opposite of that. Here we have a grown man acting like a kid, with no idea how to inspire his citizens (except a small group), while publicizing the fact that the Congress holds less power than they think they do. He tries to subvert his own power by not filling key positions. He may or may not have the people's best interest in mind. About the only thing they have in common is taking attention away from others with more actual power.
Also, he didn't fake a scandal. He should have kept his damn mouth shut about the investigation the entire time, but he never made anything out to be salacious. It was the press that did that, in particular Fox Benghazi^W News. Hillary clearly broke the law and should have owned up to it early, to shut her critics up (good luck with that, I know). I personally feel like she should have dropped out of the race, but I recognize that isn't a popular position. Maybe the DNC should let a real liberal run for a change, instead of a pro-bank, pro-censorship faker and pander artist.
Another liberal here, by American standards anyway. I never thought Comey was a bad guy, just caught in a bad situation, with no real clear way to fulfill his duties without appearing to be biased or hiding something. I still remember when he at least tried to stand up to W's main man Gonzales back in the days when people actually tried to actually do their jobs and paid lip service to the Constitution. It's funny, back then I thought Gonzales was the devil. I wasn't a fan of Ashcroft either. But they all seem downright saintly in comparison to the jackwagons running the show now.
I have made hundreds of edits to Wikipedia over the years, thousands if you count minor changes. I have never had a well-sourced edit get reverted. In fact the only two reverts I can think of were instances of me trolling anonymously. Maybe I just don't wade in the same waters as you. I know there have been edit wars. I know there are some people who think they own articles. I just have never experienced it. There are procedures in place for these sorts of things, and normally the community handles it in an equitable fashion. With a project this size and scope, it's not surprising that some things get missed.
Ladder logic, flow charts, and "normal" programming all serve a different purpose. But they can almost always be used in place of the other, if you have somebody talented at the helm. I have seen ladder logic used to run $25MM power plants (very high uptime). I have seen graphical LabView-style programming run a manufacturing line (not very well). I have seen people use a microcontroller for something most sane people would have assigned to a PLC (smaller and cheaper, but more easily damaged). it really depends on your situation, and what tradeoffs you need to make. I wouldn't attempt to make a database in PLC ladder logic. But I wouldn't attempt to control an automation line with a Windows computer, either.
I had the good fortune to sit next to a lady and her daughter for whom this was their first commercial flight (unfortunately for them it was Frontier). They were used to flying on USAF planes like you said, sleeping bags and all. The lady had been so mistreated on this trip (by shitty Frontier employees, who excel at being dicks), that she wanted a drink when we got in the air. Of course her wallet was in her purse, which was overhead (front row coach), and they wouldn't let her out. I bought her drink. I regaled her with the horrors of commercial flying (especially Frontier, which is just the worst), and she told me all about being an Air Force family. The daughter and I swapped iPads for part of the flight, too. She got to play the evolving shark game, and I got to play some twitch game. It was a pleasant end to a vacation that had gotten off to a rocky start (did I mention Frontier sucks?).
One of my co-workers is anti-globalist. But he has a list of industries we need to get back up and running before we go around cutting international ties and pissing off our allies and trade partners. It's scary shit. Did you know the US only makes 1.4% of the worlds aluminum? We're low on the list for uranium, vanadium, and tantalum. China makes ten times as much steel as we do. It would be foolhardy to become completely isolationist, especially before we have any way of making/mining enough raw materials to keep our country going.
Your dichotomy of "globalist vs populist" is interesting. Traditionally it would be "globalist vs nationalist" or "globalist vs isolationist." You can be populist and globalist at the same time. The thesaurus says the opposite of populist is elitist. But I'm not sure that's quite right, given the baggage both of these words have developed over the years. Some might argue that the opposite of populist is corporatist, but that's not even a word (at least not a word with an agreed-upon definition).
Slashdot Mirror
The headline is literally a stab at Trump to make him look like an idiot for touching on something that's 17 years gone
First of all, stop using "literally" to mean "figuratively." Second of all ...What?! The headline is just a plain fact. I don't like the guy, but you can't fault him for trying to delete regs he thinks are obsolete. You can argue that a thing isn't actually obsolete, but that's different. Nothing in the tone of the headline seems offensive to me, nor does it seem like Trump bashing. You could just as easily say it is too kind to the man, since it makes it sound like he found some great way to save the government a lot of money. (I don't take that reading either.) I find it funny when people who decry "snowflakes" take such offense at clearly neutral phrases.
You do see the difference in persuading somebody to vote against there best interest versus conning them out of thousands of dollars, right? And last time I checked, Hillary isn't president, and I didn't ever claim she was ethical. So you can GTFO with that red herring.
That is absolutely false. There are thousands of businesses in America run by ethical people who give a shit about their customers and don't try to con them out of money. If it were otherwise, why would so many companies try to keep their reputations on Google reviews as spotless as possible? True, there have always been successful cheaters, and there have always been ethical losers. But by-and-large most humans don't want to be an asshole. That's what makes Donald Trump such a stand out. He just cannot be shamed.
Then by all means, cherry pick some businesses he's been in that are completely above board. I welcome the information! It would be a blessing to know that the leader of the free world is NOT a vapid charlatan.
I am a Methodist (now). We believe science and education in general are important. We believe in individual liberties, so we tend to respect other people who don't share our beliefs. We also believe in helping others in need, protecting the resources God gave us, and practicing grace and forgiveness with our fellow man.
Nothing about my religion makes me act in a way that retards progress. Further, in respect to the arts, religion has historically encouraged progress, just look at anything from the Sistine Chapel to Sagrada Familia, from Praetorius to Messiaen. This could also be extended to historical religions, as well. Now, it's up for debate whether retarding progress, on the whole, is even something bad. But I'll take your premise at face value for now.
The problem, at least among Christians, is when they stray too far from the red letters. I tend to blame Paul for sowing the early seeds of what we have today. Sure he had some good points "there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Gentile, barbarian nor Scythian" (can't remember the exact quote and too lazy to look it up.) But he had some boneheaded ideas, too (especially about gender roles). He simultaneously claimed Jesus freed us from the old law, while making new proscriptions that were suspiciously like the Pentateuch.
Over the centuries, these competing ideals of love-and-mercy versus shame-and-guilt became ingrained in organized religion. These religions split and evolved and split and evolved. Each successive generation piling on stranger rules and intense emotional baggage. Arguably none of it was in keeping with a simple Nazarene who just wanted everybody to love one another.
Somehow all of this translated to a little boy in a border town being told he couldn't watch the Smurfs because they are demonic, but the scary-as-fuck "Thief in the Night" was required watching. Shortly this progressed to "pro-life" rallies where he was encouraged to verbally abuse girls who were looking for some help in a time of need. Then, after moving to even-more-"conservative" west Texas, the same kid was taken to a brainwashing session at a large church where the bombardier beetle was used as an argument against evolution. All of this was accompanied by years of shame for surviving sexual assault.
That kind of "religion" is a plague. It is organized hate-mongering designed to keep people in the pews giving money for fear of going to hell. They have little to nothing to do with the loving message they claim to hold dear. Then you have the likes of Creflo Dollar and Joel Osteen who may seem more loving, but they take their toll financially rather than emotionally. Little old ladies send in their last pension dollars as a "seed" that is more likely to fuel a supercar.
So I see where you are coming from. This thing we call "religion" in America has become pretty foul. But I don't think it's an immutable problem with religion per se. I think it has to do with imperfect humans doing a shitty job. It's like we took the Oatmeal "How to Suck at Your Religion" for a how-to article.
As an aside, I think most Americans would be horrified if they ever actually read the bible. It is distinctly "unamerican." Look at the original church in the book of Acts. These people were literally communists, in that they formed a commune. Also, I can guaran-damn-tee you that most "religious" Americans don't tithe. Don't even get me started on "If a man steals your shirt, give him your cloak, too."
This is one of the interesting features of most conspiracy features. "How come nobody is talking about XXXXX." The answers are normally, "They are, you just choose to ignore it" or "They aren't talking about it because it represents a worldview held by so few people, that nobody would even understand what they are talking about."
I don't bitch when the local news doesn't cover the installation of a new pipe organ in Polynesia with a rare type of reed stop. My wife doesn't complain when ABC doesn't do an expose on her phone's sudden failure to send emails. On the other hand, my son wants to know why nobody's talking about the fact that some kid traded him fake Pokemon cards. Is it because they are trying to hide something? Maybe they knew that kid had fake cards!
I guess conspiracy theorists just never grew up. A kid thinks, "People are not talking about what I think is important, therefore they must be against me personally." A well-rounded adult thinks, "People are not talking about this thing I think is important. They must have better things to do with their time. Maybe I can talk to some people and get their opinion about what's important to them." A typical American conspiracy theorist proclaims loudly, "The media isn't giving my flat-earth theory the air time it deserves, therefore Obama is a secret Muslim who is going to make me gay marry an illegal immigrant atheist."
I don't think "con artist" is name calling; it is just shorthand to describe his business habits to date. He convinces people to do things not in their best interest by lying to them. He puts on a good show and gets people to have confidence in him, and then produces zilch. Just look at Trump University, the Taj Mahal debacle, or the Trump Network (vitamins). None of has proven to be illegal (yet), but none of it was ethical. Hopefully he'll do better for we the people than he did for his previous clients and investors.
We accept the election results, as the inevitable incarnation of American narcissism, incompetence, and discourtesy. I've said all along that Trump was going to win because he's the president America deserves. We just want to make sure Russia knows to GTFO and let us elect our own idiots in peace.
I think B) hit the nail on the head. Obama, in his typically naive manner, probably thought the American people weren't a bunch of racist asshats. So he assumed Hillary would win, and saw no reason to cast aspersions on her win by sounding a public alarm that the hax0rz are trying to infiltrate state databases.
Ugh. Can you imagine? Think about how bad his whining is now. He wins, but still he claims the election was rigged by busloads of fake voters. Why?! Does he really believe that crap, or is he fucking with us? But if he had lost.... oh my god. The breitbart foxosphere would have been assploding with stupid.
The worst is the female minifig hair. Stepping on it activates an artificial intelligence routine that rotates the pokey-est part of the hair to the softest part of your foot. DARPA is investigating the technology to see if it could have wartime uses.
This is heresy, and I beg forgiveness from my fellow AFOLs. One of my favorite sets was actually the Mega Blocks mechanized warfare set. You could make tanks and other "modern warfare" machines. They were in olive drab and everything. I also liked that they had half-height plates, which gave a different feel to things. I made the mistake of offering these to somebody in a BrickLink forum. Nearly got banned from the site. LOL.
Legoland in Florida is some of the best bang for your buck of any theme park I can think of. Universal has better rides, but it's more expensive. Six Flags has longer lines, and no sense of exploration. EPCOT has the nerd factor, but is more expensive. Sea World doesn't have as many rides, and I don't like getting splashed with salt water.
I hope they get ... told to stick it where the sun don't shine.
I thought they do this on a regular basis. You never know where terrrris might try to hide a bomb!
I expressed my first amendment rights at the TSA checkpoint once. Missed my flight. Only got let go because I sang the national anthem at the top of my lungs while they were dicking around. They even had my cell phone blocked while I was at the airport.
It sure as shit ain't Texas. We don't get killed by terrorists 'round these parts. And it don't mention freak bull riding accidents?
Terrorist would be a lot less scary if we called them something else. Instead of "radical Islamic terrorist," we should start calling them "fake Muslim coward pigfuckers" or maybe "murder dicks" or "stinky loser pants" or "failed reality stars."
Makes me think of the King of the Hansa, in the Saga of Seven Suns. Although I only made it through the first three or four books. There we have a kid who was trained from an early age how to act kingly and inspire his citizens, while hiding the fact that the Chairman holds all the power. He tries to subversively wrest power from those who he feels do not have his people's best interest in mind.
Trump is like the opposite of that. Here we have a grown man acting like a kid, with no idea how to inspire his citizens (except a small group), while publicizing the fact that the Congress holds less power than they think they do. He tries to subvert his own power by not filling key positions. He may or may not have the people's best interest in mind. About the only thing they have in common is taking attention away from others with more actual power.
Absolutely not! The FBI head swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. That has nothing to do with covering the president's ass.
Ahhh... "deep state."
I see I have been trolled. Well played. Especially the part about being four times more popular than Congress. Very good trolling!!
Also, he didn't fake a scandal. He should have kept his damn mouth shut about the investigation the entire time, but he never made anything out to be salacious. It was the press that did that, in particular Fox Benghazi^W News. Hillary clearly broke the law and should have owned up to it early, to shut her critics up (good luck with that, I know). I personally feel like she should have dropped out of the race, but I recognize that isn't a popular position. Maybe the DNC should let a real liberal run for a change, instead of a pro-bank, pro-censorship faker and pander artist.
Another liberal here, by American standards anyway. I never thought Comey was a bad guy, just caught in a bad situation, with no real clear way to fulfill his duties without appearing to be biased or hiding something. I still remember when he at least tried to stand up to W's main man Gonzales back in the days when people actually tried to actually do their jobs and paid lip service to the Constitution. It's funny, back then I thought Gonzales was the devil. I wasn't a fan of Ashcroft either. But they all seem downright saintly in comparison to the jackwagons running the show now.
I have made hundreds of edits to Wikipedia over the years, thousands if you count minor changes. I have never had a well-sourced edit get reverted. In fact the only two reverts I can think of were instances of me trolling anonymously. Maybe I just don't wade in the same waters as you. I know there have been edit wars. I know there are some people who think they own articles. I just have never experienced it. There are procedures in place for these sorts of things, and normally the community handles it in an equitable fashion. With a project this size and scope, it's not surprising that some things get missed.
Ladder logic, flow charts, and "normal" programming all serve a different purpose. But they can almost always be used in place of the other, if you have somebody talented at the helm. I have seen ladder logic used to run $25MM power plants (very high uptime). I have seen graphical LabView-style programming run a manufacturing line (not very well). I have seen people use a microcontroller for something most sane people would have assigned to a PLC (smaller and cheaper, but more easily damaged). it really depends on your situation, and what tradeoffs you need to make. I wouldn't attempt to make a database in PLC ladder logic. But I wouldn't attempt to control an automation line with a Windows computer, either.
The notion of using Mindstorms for all my plant safety equipment just popped into my head. Bwahahahahaa!!!! I love it! Don't think HSE will go for it.
I had the good fortune to sit next to a lady and her daughter for whom this was their first commercial flight (unfortunately for them it was Frontier). They were used to flying on USAF planes like you said, sleeping bags and all. The lady had been so mistreated on this trip (by shitty Frontier employees, who excel at being dicks), that she wanted a drink when we got in the air. Of course her wallet was in her purse, which was overhead (front row coach), and they wouldn't let her out. I bought her drink. I regaled her with the horrors of commercial flying (especially Frontier, which is just the worst), and she told me all about being an Air Force family. The daughter and I swapped iPads for part of the flight, too. She got to play the evolving shark game, and I got to play some twitch game. It was a pleasant end to a vacation that had gotten off to a rocky start (did I mention Frontier sucks?).
One of my co-workers is anti-globalist. But he has a list of industries we need to get back up and running before we go around cutting international ties and pissing off our allies and trade partners. It's scary shit. Did you know the US only makes 1.4% of the worlds aluminum? We're low on the list for uranium, vanadium, and tantalum. China makes ten times as much steel as we do. It would be foolhardy to become completely isolationist, especially before we have any way of making/mining enough raw materials to keep our country going.
Your dichotomy of "globalist vs populist" is interesting. Traditionally it would be "globalist vs nationalist" or "globalist vs isolationist." You can be populist and globalist at the same time. The thesaurus says the opposite of populist is elitist. But I'm not sure that's quite right, given the baggage both of these words have developed over the years. Some might argue that the opposite of populist is corporatist, but that's not even a word (at least not a word with an agreed-upon definition).