Retroactively judging people in the past aby today's standards for actions done then is, at best,dishonest
If that's true, then why do we care what those same people had in mind when they wrote the Constitution? If you can't judge people then by today's standards, then how do the standards of the people back then relevant in today's world?
Spotify is nearly 8 years old. "In June 2016, Apple Music exceeded 15 million subscribers.", so in less than a year....
Spotify added 20 million users in the past 18 months, so nah, bro.
Also, remember that Apple already had all the login info and credit card numbers of all the iTunes users, and Apple Radio users. And, the largest base of handheld devices. Spotify did 20 million new users without that structural advantage.
I remember the long and lengthy conversations the US Founders had regarding slavery, how it was their primary driving force, and how every essay they penned began with a tribute to slavery. Oh yes, that's right, they didn't.
They didn't have to, any more than the guys at a country club have lengthy conversations about the undocumented immigrants that trip the turf. They had a lot of flowery words about liberty and fraternity, but still owned other people.
It's like me judging you completely on your poor fashion choice when you were twelve.
The Founding Father weren't twelve. They were grown-ass men who thought it was A-OK to own human beings and force them to work for you for free.
And probably neither was the programmer. Instead there are deeply rooted institutions built on racism that become data inputs and in turn racial bias.
Absolutely right. When you have a long history of chronic racism, and an unwillingness to even recognize it, just putting technology in the mix isn't going to make it go away.
This weekend, we celebrate the birth of a nation that was specifically designed as a slave state. We're going to all pretend that it was about liberty and fighting for freedom, and the enlightenment and not about Founding FathersTM that saw other human beings as property.
Racism may never go away in the US. Maybe slavery is like Original Sin. It just cannot be washed away. I hope that's not the case.
Simple... licensed lyrics are authoritative and the source can be trusted. Just because you see a correct response in a yahoo or answers.com Q&A page doesn't give it any credibility.
We're talking about song lyrics here. There's no reason to believe that Google's source will be any more accurate than the many web sites and wikis that focus on lyrics.
it was a 90% _marginal_ rate. 90% taxes on income after $2 million, IIRC (and that was in 1960s money, something like $17 million in today's money). The 1% paid the same taxes as a coal miner up to that coal miner's salary.
OK, I agree with you. We need to have a 90% marginal rate on income over $17million. We can agree that's a good starting point.
What do you think self-driving cabs are? That's right: public transportation. The kind that actually drops you off where you need to be, which sounds like a pretty awesome fix. Not that self driving cars will fully replace subways or trains, but they may very well replace buses and trams with minibuses acting as large, shared taxis.
The problem is that replacing subways and trains with self-driving cabs will make the cost of public transportation skyrocket. It's telling that the people who are pushing this hardest happen to be people who hate public transportation.
That's according to numbers provided by a "GSS" (General Social Survey) conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago.
If you knew one single true thing about NORC, you would feel stupid believing that they're working under a particular "confirmation bias" and "political agenda".
Both the NRA and GOA (Gun Owners of America) have seen large upticks in new members
There are 4.5 million members of the NRA. It's still just a tiny fraction of total gun owners. Total membership of extremist group "Gun Owners of America" is 1.5 million. If you add the membership of the two organizations, they still only represent maybe 10 percent of the total number of gun owners. I'm betting even someone as statistically challenged as yourself can see that it is possible for there to be both a reduction in the number of households with guns AND a "large uptick" in new NRA members. Hell, they could have a "large uptick" in new members every year for the next 30 and still only represent a fraction of gun owners. For every gun owner in the US, there are between six and seven non-gun owners. Only about 30 percent of US households have a gun in them, which is the lowest it has ever been. Get that? The lowest it has ever been. So all those guns y'all are buying aren't going to make a difference to liberty or safety, because you can only shoot at most 2 of those 8 guns that you own at the same time.
particularly when the data used comes from a university (which are generally very liberal-leaning to begin with) in a city where the politics are strongly anti-gun.
Do you really believe that the location of a university impacts the political agenda of the research done there? Ever heard of Rice University? University of Texas? University of North Carolina? How about Tulane?
Come on man, don't get so desperate when the facts go against you. It's a bad look for a rough, tough patriot such as yourself to have to cower behind bogus right-wing talk radio tropes such as, "you can't believe that research because it was done in a liberal city!"
The self-driving car zealots are really kind of funny. How safe are driverless cars going to be if Roombas don't even work right yet? I suppose that soon we'll all be riding our self-driving Uber cars to our 4-day work week jobs. Right after we all get jet packs.
But really, I don't care as long as not one thin dime of public money goes into infrastructure for self-driving cars until they've fixed public transportation.
If voting fails to remove the undesired government what recourse is there left that wouldn't involve the need for violence that would work?
Just last century, we saw the Soviet Union's government fall without an armed uprising by its citizens. Since that's the only example we have for a superpower experiencing that kind of change, it's worth looking at.
I have a question for you: What was the last time an armed uprising changed a country's government for the better? I suppose you might give South Africa as an example, but blacks in South Africa didn't have any right to bear arms. Even the American Revolution was less an armed uprising against a native government than an example of a colony splitting away and declaring independence, which is a very different thing than a population revolting against a native government.
But serious question for you. If your position is (and I might not be 100% correct so I am not trying to be a troll or anything) people shouldn't have guns (or very very limited on everything gun related)
Stop there. I've been a gun owner longer than most Slashdot readers have been alive. I don't believe that people shouldn't have guns. I believe it should be highly regulated due to the inherent danger involved in owning guns. Danger to one's self and to others.
what recourse in your view does the citizenry have if the government no longer represents the will of the people / becomes something bad like history has shown happens?
Actually, history shows that bad governments are seldom replaced by good governments via civil war or armed insurrection. It happens, but that's not generally how it happens.
If the government is to the point they don't give a rats ass about the citizens then voting won't do anything. So what solutions exist if the citizens aren't armed?
Our electoral system allows for a complete change in two branches of the government every 8 years. There are no federal elected terms longer than 6 years. If people vote for the same shit election after election, I don't see how an armed insurrection could possibly improve things, because they'll just end up voting for the same shit next time they get the chance.
Fauxcohontas was hired by Harvard in an attempt to prove how diverse they were and for no other reason.
And also by the University of Texas Law School and the University of Pennsylvania Law School, proving that everybody's an idiot but not you, no sir, you can see right through their "consensus reality". Your mama didn't raise no fools, by-golly.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it's become depressing. It really puts perspective on things, though, doesn't it? Too much fucking perspective.
There is nothing so sweet as seeing an actual, "Goodbye, Cruel World" post in the wild.
It's not fake to point out that Apple is shitty to people who want to fix their own Apple products, that they fucking own.
If that's true, then why do we care what those same people had in mind when they wrote the Constitution? If you can't judge people then by today's standards, then how do the standards of the people back then relevant in today's world?
Except, Spotify's biggest period of grown in number of new users has come since Apple music was launched.
http://www.fool.com/investing/...
Spotify added 20 million users in the past 18 months, so nah, bro.
Also, remember that Apple already had all the login info and credit card numbers of all the iTunes users, and Apple Radio users. And, the largest base of handheld devices. Spotify did 20 million new users without that structural advantage.
The two people whose comments were sought for this article are:
1) Apple general counsel Bruce Sewell
2) Apple commentator John Gruber, who said,
Note: Apple Music has 13 million subscribers. Spotify has 30 million subscribers.
No, it wouldn't. Poor people get to come and go as they please. There is no prison in the US where you can do that.
They didn't have to, any more than the guys at a country club have lengthy conversations about the undocumented immigrants that trip the turf. They had a lot of flowery words about liberty and fraternity, but still owned other people.
The Founding Father weren't twelve. They were grown-ass men who thought it was A-OK to own human beings and force them to work for you for free.
Have you ever been to a club med? People at club med can come and go as they please. There is no prison that is anything like club med.
Absolutely right. When you have a long history of chronic racism, and an unwillingness to even recognize it, just putting technology in the mix isn't going to make it go away.
This weekend, we celebrate the birth of a nation that was specifically designed as a slave state. We're going to all pretend that it was about liberty and fighting for freedom, and the enlightenment and not about Founding FathersTM that saw other human beings as property.
Racism may never go away in the US. Maybe slavery is like Original Sin. It just cannot be washed away. I hope that's not the case.
My point is that 20 stories a day on Slashdot about teleporter technology being "just around the corner" would get tiresome, too.
Some people just don't know when they're being used.
We're talking about song lyrics here. There's no reason to believe that Google's source will be any more accurate than the many web sites and wikis that focus on lyrics.
If the technology existed, that is, which it does not.
OK, I agree with you. We need to have a 90% marginal rate on income over $17million. We can agree that's a good starting point.
The country did pretty well when the top income tax rate was 90%.
The problem is that replacing subways and trains with self-driving cabs will make the cost of public transportation skyrocket. It's telling that the people who are pushing this hardest happen to be people who hate public transportation.
If you knew one single true thing about NORC, you would feel stupid believing that they're working under a particular "confirmation bias" and "political agenda".
There are 4.5 million members of the NRA. It's still just a tiny fraction of total gun owners. Total membership of extremist group "Gun Owners of America" is 1.5 million. If you add the membership of the two organizations, they still only represent maybe 10 percent of the total number of gun owners. I'm betting even someone as statistically challenged as yourself can see that it is possible for there to be both a reduction in the number of households with guns AND a "large uptick" in new NRA members. Hell, they could have a "large uptick" in new members every year for the next 30 and still only represent a fraction of gun owners. For every gun owner in the US, there are between six and seven non-gun owners. Only about 30 percent of US households have a gun in them, which is the lowest it has ever been. Get that? The lowest it has ever been. So all those guns y'all are buying aren't going to make a difference to liberty or safety, because you can only shoot at most 2 of those 8 guns that you own at the same time.
Do you really believe that the location of a university impacts the political agenda of the research done there? Ever heard of Rice University? University of Texas? University of North Carolina? How about Tulane?
Come on man, don't get so desperate when the facts go against you. It's a bad look for a rough, tough patriot such as yourself to have to cower behind bogus right-wing talk radio tropes such as, "you can't believe that research because it was done in a liberal city!"
And yet she remains the most popular politician in Massachusetts.
I would bet that factlet wouldn't stand up to much scrutiny.
The self-driving car zealots are really kind of funny. How safe are driverless cars going to be if Roombas don't even work right yet? I suppose that soon we'll all be riding our self-driving Uber cars to our 4-day work week jobs. Right after we all get jet packs.
But really, I don't care as long as not one thin dime of public money goes into infrastructure for self-driving cars until they've fixed public transportation.
Just last century, we saw the Soviet Union's government fall without an armed uprising by its citizens. Since that's the only example we have for a superpower experiencing that kind of change, it's worth looking at.
I have a question for you: What was the last time an armed uprising changed a country's government for the better? I suppose you might give South Africa as an example, but blacks in South Africa didn't have any right to bear arms. Even the American Revolution was less an armed uprising against a native government than an example of a colony splitting away and declaring independence, which is a very different thing than a population revolting against a native government.
Statewide elections don't behave the same way as national elections. She will easily win her next election bid.
Stop there. I've been a gun owner longer than most Slashdot readers have been alive. I don't believe that people shouldn't have guns. I believe it should be highly regulated due to the inherent danger involved in owning guns. Danger to one's self and to others.
Actually, history shows that bad governments are seldom replaced by good governments via civil war or armed insurrection. It happens, but that's not generally how it happens.
Our electoral system allows for a complete change in two branches of the government every 8 years. There are no federal elected terms longer than 6 years. If people vote for the same shit election after election, I don't see how an armed insurrection could possibly improve things, because they'll just end up voting for the same shit next time they get the chance.
And also by the University of Texas Law School and the University of Pennsylvania Law School, proving that everybody's an idiot but not you, no sir, you can see right through their "consensus reality". Your mama didn't raise no fools, by-golly.