Totally agree, but you left out the most important and local destabilizing factor of all. Assad himself executing, torturing, and using chemical weapons on his own people. Then you have the rebellion faction against him. We walked into the middle of a civil war attempting to help the rebels gain their freedom from Assad, and then Russia came along to back Assad in spite of the war crimes he's committed. If a certain previous president had acted when he drew his red line and it was crossed we wouldn't be where we are today. To complicate matters further we had ISIS come along attempting to take advantage of the situation which destabilized the region even further. And it's not just Europe dealing with the fallout it's all of us.
Yes it does contain elements of that logical fallacy, but that alone does not necessarily make what the OP said untrue. It's a well known fact that everyone looks out for their own best interests. I think America has been exceptionally good at finding win win scenarios where possible. We've also trampled on foreign sovereignty, plundered others resources, and destabilized other countries on occasion. We've also been screwed out of resources we've purchased, had our own sovereignty violated, and had our own foreign interests destabilized. It's part of existing in the real world. Who the bad guys are all depends on what you want to focus on and what side of the fence you're sitting on. Personally if my choices are to be the screwer or the screwee... well that's not a hard equation to figure out.
Well that's nice. Get pissed all you want. But your stuff is still gone. And if you'd taken a backup it wouldn't be. Now here's your opportunity to learn for the future. Alternatively you can cuss and scream and find yourself in the same position next time.
Exactly. My first thought was "you're testing a tool that you're not familiar with, using production data, and you didn't make a backup first???" I'm not fond of changing the meaning of discard, but he still should have been more diligent.
I don't think he said anything that was divisive. He acknowledged that both sides have engaged in behavior unbecoming of a civil society. That's not siding with Nazis, it's an accurate observation. I believe the whole Nazi ideology is poison and needs to die. However, holding that viewpoint is not mutually exclusive to pointing out that the antifa folks are just as bad for different reasons. How many times have these antifa folks burned cars, incited violence, broken windows, etc? Why should they get a pass?
For some feminists that definition isn't far off. Plenty of them hold a radical viewpoint that is discriminatory, allows for violence, and other socially unacceptable behavior that could be associated with fascism. But indeed anytime you start painting any group with a broad brush it's likely to be inaccurate. Not saying your wrong just pointing out that there's an element of reality there which makes it a poor analogy.
I'm no fan of these idiots, but any time we start stifling free expression I think we're on dangerous ground. I know Discord is a private company and it's their right to do it. However, I think there's value in letting it go. Let these fools demonstrate what fools they are. At least everyone will know who they are and what they're all about. Censoring them doesn't change their mind it just forces them underground.
I wouldn't say fake news. I don't think I've ever heard about something being outright fake on Fox. The same cannot be said for CNN or MSNBC. What they do have a tendency to do is insert their bias into the story and emphasize some details while downplaying or leaving out others. Just like every other media outlet does. I like Fox for their conservative viewpoint, but I also tune into CNN for the counter point as well as other publications both foreign and domestic. The bottom line is no one gives the straight unadulterated facts. And even for looking at disparate sources there are still details that very few if any know about in some situations.
This is because of how executives look at pay. They figure if you're not leaving you're happy with what you have, or at least not frustrated enough to leave. They only start to take notice when people leave and they can't hire anyone at their pay rate. That's the point at which they start to consider increasing pay.
No we're not allowed to ask. We're simply supposed to blindly believe everything a liberal tells us, and if we don't we're a racist, homophobic, xenophobic, moron with no clue.
Don't lump us all in together like that. I'm not in favor of any such things. We need national defense with an emphasis on defense. That takes money but if it were managed well it would take less of it not more. I feel it's the only thing that government is really well suited for. I don't want any corporate welfare or subsidies. And by the way ever heard of Solyndra? That was hardly a conservative boondoggle. All this "green" energy stuff has meant a lot of green going to liberal causes. I'd like the government out of all social support applications. Notice how much we spend on welfare, WIC, GIA, section 8, medicare, Medicaid, education, child care credits, etc. The poor are still poor. There are still children who don't eat. There are still homeless people, some by their own choosing, and others not. There are still kids graduating who are unable to read. There are still unemployable people with no life skills. The government is completely impotent in solving these problems. People who could work abuse the programs and game the system and brag about it. People who are legitimately in need don't get help. You could raise taxes to 100% and still not solve this problem with our system as it stands.
Oh I know. He's going to really get it now. He'll raise the price of everything he's selling to cover it by double. And you morons will still feel victorious.
Nothing stops you from giving of your own if you feel that way. But mandating a tax that somehow always seems to grow the government bigger and never really trickles down to the poverty stricken seems unproductive to me.
Your utopia sounds nice. Any ideas as to how we bring that about? I like the way you lay the onus on people who are "busy being faux-moral jerkoffs". Since you see to think you have all the answers let's hear what they are.
Here are some facts about our current situation:
Most people in this country work for a corporation.
When you raise taxes on the rich they pass it on to everyone else.
The people who are rich got that way by being smart enough to game the system most of the time using existing laws and benefits.
And I'm not ascribing moral value to these things. I'm simply pointing out that in order to bring about the change you seem to want there are certain realities that have to change. People have to be willing to step out on their own and start their own business being responsible for the success or failure of that business and doing the hard work required to be successful with the understanding that they might fail anyway. Not willing to take that risk? Welcome to the corporation who has already taken that risk and succeeded. Until corporations become an option rather than a necessity we're going to have this problem.
How many news networks has Trump silenced? All he's doing is pointing out their bias. CNN is still welcome to say whatever they want even if it is blatantly false. And TFA is merely speculation that he could interfere with their merger. No facts. No concrete evidence. No direct quote. Speculation based on "how the president thinks". Hey, that's totally objective right? Let's face it, if he did interfere there would be a huge backlash, and I would suspect he's smarter than to try to fool around like that. The merger will likely go through without any hindrance at all. But gee isn't it fun to use every opportunity to make Trump out to be the boogeyman?
He didn't have to. They were falling all over themselves to portray him in the best possible light. Total propaganda. The majority of media in this country is biased towards liberalism. They don't even try to hide it anymore.
That's not exactly true. Thorium is abundant here (not sure about Mars) and naturally fails safe as it is a solid and never melts down. Plenty of experiments have been done to validate its viability. The real reason it gains no traction is well entrenched industries and their ties to politicians.
Except that the article in its closing paragraph indicates that it would take a direct order from Trump to stop it, and no such order has been given. Keep in mind as well that this is all based on anonymous sources coming from a publication well known for its bias. I'm not saying it's false, I'm just skeptical considering the lack of credible information. While the constant crowing about fake news has worn rather thin it's not exactly incorrect. The media in general leans liberal and has been far more critical of Trump than they were of Obama. They've also been caught making stuff up outright. So yeah, I think it makes the president look somewhat petty when he calls attention to something that everyone who cares already sees. But at the same time he's not wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Totally agree, but you left out the most important and local destabilizing factor of all. Assad himself executing, torturing, and using chemical weapons on his own people. Then you have the rebellion faction against him. We walked into the middle of a civil war attempting to help the rebels gain their freedom from Assad, and then Russia came along to back Assad in spite of the war crimes he's committed. If a certain previous president had acted when he drew his red line and it was crossed we wouldn't be where we are today. To complicate matters further we had ISIS come along attempting to take advantage of the situation which destabilized the region even further. And it's not just Europe dealing with the fallout it's all of us.
Yes it does contain elements of that logical fallacy, but that alone does not necessarily make what the OP said untrue. It's a well known fact that everyone looks out for their own best interests. I think America has been exceptionally good at finding win win scenarios where possible. We've also trampled on foreign sovereignty, plundered others resources, and destabilized other countries on occasion. We've also been screwed out of resources we've purchased, had our own sovereignty violated, and had our own foreign interests destabilized. It's part of existing in the real world. Who the bad guys are all depends on what you want to focus on and what side of the fence you're sitting on. Personally if my choices are to be the screwer or the screwee... well that's not a hard equation to figure out.
Well that's nice. Get pissed all you want. But your stuff is still gone. And if you'd taken a backup it wouldn't be. Now here's your opportunity to learn for the future. Alternatively you can cuss and scream and find yourself in the same position next time.
Exactly. My first thought was "you're testing a tool that you're not familiar with, using production data, and you didn't make a backup first???" I'm not fond of changing the meaning of discard, but he still should have been more diligent.
I can't think why they should. It would still be the same obvious leftist tripe it was the last time around.
I don't think he said anything that was divisive. He acknowledged that both sides have engaged in behavior unbecoming of a civil society. That's not siding with Nazis, it's an accurate observation. I believe the whole Nazi ideology is poison and needs to die. However, holding that viewpoint is not mutually exclusive to pointing out that the antifa folks are just as bad for different reasons. How many times have these antifa folks burned cars, incited violence, broken windows, etc? Why should they get a pass?
For some feminists that definition isn't far off. Plenty of them hold a radical viewpoint that is discriminatory, allows for violence, and other socially unacceptable behavior that could be associated with fascism. But indeed anytime you start painting any group with a broad brush it's likely to be inaccurate. Not saying your wrong just pointing out that there's an element of reality there which makes it a poor analogy.
I'm no fan of these idiots, but any time we start stifling free expression I think we're on dangerous ground. I know Discord is a private company and it's their right to do it. However, I think there's value in letting it go. Let these fools demonstrate what fools they are. At least everyone will know who they are and what they're all about. Censoring them doesn't change their mind it just forces them underground.
I wouldn't say fake news. I don't think I've ever heard about something being outright fake on Fox. The same cannot be said for CNN or MSNBC. What they do have a tendency to do is insert their bias into the story and emphasize some details while downplaying or leaving out others. Just like every other media outlet does. I like Fox for their conservative viewpoint, but I also tune into CNN for the counter point as well as other publications both foreign and domestic. The bottom line is no one gives the straight unadulterated facts. And even for looking at disparate sources there are still details that very few if any know about in some situations.
This is because of how executives look at pay. They figure if you're not leaving you're happy with what you have, or at least not frustrated enough to leave. They only start to take notice when people leave and they can't hire anyone at their pay rate. That's the point at which they start to consider increasing pay.
Not fair working in two answers at once.
aka Marketing
This is entirely correct. I know many clueless managers who live and die by that Magic Quadrant.
That's a great song!
No we're not allowed to ask. We're simply supposed to blindly believe everything a liberal tells us, and if we don't we're a racist, homophobic, xenophobic, moron with no clue.
Don't lump us all in together like that. I'm not in favor of any such things. We need national defense with an emphasis on defense. That takes money but if it were managed well it would take less of it not more. I feel it's the only thing that government is really well suited for. I don't want any corporate welfare or subsidies. And by the way ever heard of Solyndra? That was hardly a conservative boondoggle. All this "green" energy stuff has meant a lot of green going to liberal causes. I'd like the government out of all social support applications. Notice how much we spend on welfare, WIC, GIA, section 8, medicare, Medicaid, education, child care credits, etc. The poor are still poor. There are still children who don't eat. There are still homeless people, some by their own choosing, and others not. There are still kids graduating who are unable to read. There are still unemployable people with no life skills. The government is completely impotent in solving these problems. People who could work abuse the programs and game the system and brag about it. People who are legitimately in need don't get help. You could raise taxes to 100% and still not solve this problem with our system as it stands.
Oh I know. He's going to really get it now. He'll raise the price of everything he's selling to cover it by double. And you morons will still feel victorious.
Nothing stops you from giving of your own if you feel that way. But mandating a tax that somehow always seems to grow the government bigger and never really trickles down to the poverty stricken seems unproductive to me.
Your utopia sounds nice. Any ideas as to how we bring that about? I like the way you lay the onus on people who are "busy being faux-moral jerkoffs". Since you see to think you have all the answers let's hear what they are. Here are some facts about our current situation: Most people in this country work for a corporation. When you raise taxes on the rich they pass it on to everyone else. The people who are rich got that way by being smart enough to game the system most of the time using existing laws and benefits. And I'm not ascribing moral value to these things. I'm simply pointing out that in order to bring about the change you seem to want there are certain realities that have to change. People have to be willing to step out on their own and start their own business being responsible for the success or failure of that business and doing the hard work required to be successful with the understanding that they might fail anyway. Not willing to take that risk? Welcome to the corporation who has already taken that risk and succeeded. Until corporations become an option rather than a necessity we're going to have this problem.
How many news networks has Trump silenced? All he's doing is pointing out their bias. CNN is still welcome to say whatever they want even if it is blatantly false. And TFA is merely speculation that he could interfere with their merger. No facts. No concrete evidence. No direct quote. Speculation based on "how the president thinks". Hey, that's totally objective right? Let's face it, if he did interfere there would be a huge backlash, and I would suspect he's smarter than to try to fool around like that. The merger will likely go through without any hindrance at all. But gee isn't it fun to use every opportunity to make Trump out to be the boogeyman?
He didn't have to. They were falling all over themselves to portray him in the best possible light. Total propaganda. The majority of media in this country is biased towards liberalism. They don't even try to hide it anymore.
That's not exactly true. Thorium is abundant here (not sure about Mars) and naturally fails safe as it is a solid and never melts down. Plenty of experiments have been done to validate its viability. The real reason it gains no traction is well entrenched industries and their ties to politicians.
Except that the article in its closing paragraph indicates that it would take a direct order from Trump to stop it, and no such order has been given. Keep in mind as well that this is all based on anonymous sources coming from a publication well known for its bias. I'm not saying it's false, I'm just skeptical considering the lack of credible information. While the constant crowing about fake news has worn rather thin it's not exactly incorrect. The media in general leans liberal and has been far more critical of Trump than they were of Obama. They've also been caught making stuff up outright. So yeah, I think it makes the president look somewhat petty when he calls attention to something that everyone who cares already sees. But at the same time he's not wrong.
Ok that's an interesting claim. Care to provide some sources for that conspiracy theory?
Well thank you for settling that.