Totally on point. I have yet to see a legitimate argument as to why censorship of this particular individual is justified. Maxine Waters straight up called for violence against Trump supporters. I have yet to hear any outrage about that with maybe the exception of Fox News.
I saw the video in question. He never called for violence specifically, and never mentioned anyone by name. What he said (and I'm paraphrasing) is we need to rise up against the media and that we need to keep our rifles by our bedside. So he never advocated violence against the media. Sure, you could take it that way. You could also argue that he meant to speak up and not be silent. Keeping your rifle by your bedside is a defensive measure. This has nothing to do with what he said and everything to do with his political position.
Oh, I'm hardly a libtard. I just have enough going on to know when I'm being sold a bill of goods. I really believe Alex Jones exists to keep people who would look from looking at the things that really matter. Maybe you ought to put down the bong and learn how to think critically.
The thing with Alex Jones is that it's fairly obvious that he's off his nut. Do we really need Facebook to protect us from him? Are you incapable of listening to people and coming to the determination as to whether or not they're full of crap? And if not, who would the appropriate party be? Facebook? The government? Some agency? All have potential for abuse. I'd rather hear and see everything and make up my own mind.
Was that supposed to be a cohesive argument? If you want to disagree, fine. I happen to agree that there is a huge hypocrisy when it comes to the left. It's evident in the media as well as these private companies using their power and influence to silence viewpoints they disagree with. There's a discussion to be had here. Calling people names throwing up strawmen just suggests to me that you don't actually have a valid argument.
Lol. Believe whatever you want, however there is a historical frame of reference for the premise. I'm not anti-science, but I sure wish we'd be a little more thoughtful rather than reactionary in our approach. Never did I say let's not do anything. But doing the right something is not the same thing as doing something.
I'll have to look them up tonight. I've never heard of them, but from what you describe it sounds like complete heresy. Nothing in Revelations indicated that the end times can be or will be brought about by man. In fact, it says "no man knows the hour or the day" indicating it will be on God's time table. I often wonder how these groups call themselves Christians when there is nothing in scripture to substantiate what they believe.
No, says history. Every country on earth was acquired by conquest. It's lovely to think we could become civilized, and move beyond that. But human nature would suggest that it's not attainable. That being the case, I'd rather the country I live in be the dominant one rather than the dominated.
I canned Direct TV in March, and I'm missing cable news. I almost signed up for Playstation Vue last night. But I did some research and found I won't be able to pause and FF through commercials. I'm tired of paying monthly to watch commercials. Over the years it's just gotten more and more obnoxious. Back when it was at the top of the hour for 2-3 minutes it wasn't so bad. But now it's 5 minutes of commercials for every 10 minutes of programming. It's just absurd that I was paying $80/mo for satellite to spend 1/3 of the time watching commercials or forwarding through them. At $40 sure it's half the cost, but now I won't even be able to forward through it anymore. That's not a solution as far as I'm concerned. And they won't stop until it seriously costs them. So for now I abstain and get my content from the internet for free.
It works really good for me. I use it for web, mail, database, and SSH services. It's maybe not as point and click as Ubuntu, but I count that as a good thing. It's nice to make things easy for newcomers, but you really don't learn much about the underlying architecture unless you're forced to read man pages and wade through config files.
Congratulations. You've managed to take just about every conspiracy theory and stick them altogether in one single post. Kudos. I still however, am confused as to what any of that has to do with TFA.
Amen to that. I bristled at the OP's contention as well. Where in the world has a purely free market been tried? People are inherently greedy / self serving and they reside in both corporations and governments. To put full trust in either is folly.
Any time you have to rely on the government you are beholden to them. Do something they don't like, and they'll take away your stipend. Another problem (which pointed out in the summary) is what happens when the obligation exceeds what the government can provide (they run out of money)? Now you've got a whole society of people who are screwed and have forgotten how to do for themselves. A much better way to go is to train people to be self reliant, but that requires willingness on the part of the individual and altruism on the part of the government. I'd be all for getting rid of all social support from the government. It's just not a skill set that they excel in. Then make a law that the CEO cannot make more than 3 times what the lowest paid employee makes. No CEO provides more than 3 times the benefit to an organization than a janitor. Think about it. That's a fairly thankless job, and think about the morale and what the place would look like if the janitor went away. Stack that up against the CEO who's "good ideas" are what make the company profitable. The reality is few of the CEOs have their own ideas. They're taking credit for many other people's ideas, and they minimize the ideas that don't pan out. Their actual value is not that great. In fact, this largely applies to the whole echelon of executives. They don't really do the actual work. Often times they don't even know what the actual work requires. They just know how to over embellish while articulating their worth.
Yes, but the two choices were Clinton, and Sanders (a socialist effectively). Both far left, corrupt, and highly unlikely to win. With or without Russian meddling it wouldn't have made a difference. The democratic party is no longer a political counterbalance but a progressive excursion that's outside of the mainstream. If they want to start winning elections again they need to come back to the center.
It's not like this is a technological problem, or an agreement that hinges on scientific understanding. It's completely political. Time and time again we've signed agreements, given them money, only to have them continue to develop nuclear weapons. What requires a scientist to understand that dichotomy?
Slashdot Mirror
We ARE the QA.
Redundant Array of Inaccessible Data
If he really had $250k worth of files you'd think he'd have a backup.
Totally on point. I have yet to see a legitimate argument as to why censorship of this particular individual is justified. Maxine Waters straight up called for violence against Trump supporters. I have yet to hear any outrage about that with maybe the exception of Fox News.
I saw the video in question. He never called for violence specifically, and never mentioned anyone by name. What he said (and I'm paraphrasing) is we need to rise up against the media and that we need to keep our rifles by our bedside. So he never advocated violence against the media. Sure, you could take it that way. You could also argue that he meant to speak up and not be silent. Keeping your rifle by your bedside is a defensive measure. This has nothing to do with what he said and everything to do with his political position.
Oh, I'm hardly a libtard. I just have enough going on to know when I'm being sold a bill of goods. I really believe Alex Jones exists to keep people who would look from looking at the things that really matter. Maybe you ought to put down the bong and learn how to think critically.
The thing with Alex Jones is that it's fairly obvious that he's off his nut. Do we really need Facebook to protect us from him? Are you incapable of listening to people and coming to the determination as to whether or not they're full of crap? And if not, who would the appropriate party be? Facebook? The government? Some agency? All have potential for abuse. I'd rather hear and see everything and make up my own mind.
Was that supposed to be a cohesive argument? If you want to disagree, fine. I happen to agree that there is a huge hypocrisy when it comes to the left. It's evident in the media as well as these private companies using their power and influence to silence viewpoints they disagree with. There's a discussion to be had here. Calling people names throwing up strawmen just suggests to me that you don't actually have a valid argument.
At least we got rid of Alex Jones though.
It was a TI 99/4A. Long before the internet.
Lol. Believe whatever you want, however there is a historical frame of reference for the premise. I'm not anti-science, but I sure wish we'd be a little more thoughtful rather than reactionary in our approach. Never did I say let's not do anything. But doing the right something is not the same thing as doing something.
Just wait until they discover that excessive CO2 was never a problem and now they've created some other catastrophe.
I'll have to look them up tonight. I've never heard of them, but from what you describe it sounds like complete heresy. Nothing in Revelations indicated that the end times can be or will be brought about by man. In fact, it says "no man knows the hour or the day" indicating it will be on God's time table. I often wonder how these groups call themselves Christians when there is nothing in scripture to substantiate what they believe.
No, says history. Every country on earth was acquired by conquest. It's lovely to think we could become civilized, and move beyond that. But human nature would suggest that it's not attainable. That being the case, I'd rather the country I live in be the dominant one rather than the dominated.
We're gonna need a bigger wall.
This ^ A bad manager can totally ruin an otherwise perfectly good job.
I canned Direct TV in March, and I'm missing cable news. I almost signed up for Playstation Vue last night. But I did some research and found I won't be able to pause and FF through commercials. I'm tired of paying monthly to watch commercials. Over the years it's just gotten more and more obnoxious. Back when it was at the top of the hour for 2-3 minutes it wasn't so bad. But now it's 5 minutes of commercials for every 10 minutes of programming. It's just absurd that I was paying $80 /mo for satellite to spend 1/3 of the time watching commercials or forwarding through them. At $40 sure it's half the cost, but now I won't even be able to forward through it anymore. That's not a solution as far as I'm concerned. And they won't stop until it seriously costs them. So for now I abstain and get my content from the internet for free.
It works really good for me. I use it for web, mail, database, and SSH services. It's maybe not as point and click as Ubuntu, but I count that as a good thing. It's nice to make things easy for newcomers, but you really don't learn much about the underlying architecture unless you're forced to read man pages and wade through config files.
He was gonna remember his password, but then he got high.
Hopefully it's down for good.
Congratulations. You've managed to take just about every conspiracy theory and stick them altogether in one single post. Kudos. I still however, am confused as to what any of that has to do with TFA.
Amen to that. I bristled at the OP's contention as well. Where in the world has a purely free market been tried? People are inherently greedy / self serving and they reside in both corporations and governments. To put full trust in either is folly.
Any time you have to rely on the government you are beholden to them. Do something they don't like, and they'll take away your stipend. Another problem (which pointed out in the summary) is what happens when the obligation exceeds what the government can provide (they run out of money)? Now you've got a whole society of people who are screwed and have forgotten how to do for themselves. A much better way to go is to train people to be self reliant, but that requires willingness on the part of the individual and altruism on the part of the government. I'd be all for getting rid of all social support from the government. It's just not a skill set that they excel in. Then make a law that the CEO cannot make more than 3 times what the lowest paid employee makes. No CEO provides more than 3 times the benefit to an organization than a janitor. Think about it. That's a fairly thankless job, and think about the morale and what the place would look like if the janitor went away. Stack that up against the CEO who's "good ideas" are what make the company profitable. The reality is few of the CEOs have their own ideas. They're taking credit for many other people's ideas, and they minimize the ideas that don't pan out. Their actual value is not that great. In fact, this largely applies to the whole echelon of executives. They don't really do the actual work. Often times they don't even know what the actual work requires. They just know how to over embellish while articulating their worth.
Yes, but the two choices were Clinton, and Sanders (a socialist effectively). Both far left, corrupt, and highly unlikely to win. With or without Russian meddling it wouldn't have made a difference. The democratic party is no longer a political counterbalance but a progressive excursion that's outside of the mainstream. If they want to start winning elections again they need to come back to the center.
It's not like this is a technological problem, or an agreement that hinges on scientific understanding. It's completely political. Time and time again we've signed agreements, given them money, only to have them continue to develop nuclear weapons. What requires a scientist to understand that dichotomy?