Comment First post, First vote! (Score -1, Troll) 307
First option! Aw yeah!
First option! Aw yeah!
It's funny how butthurt they are about Cuba and how much effort they put into overthrowing Castro. It's like they don't have any bigger problems.
Because the CTO can spin this to the CEO as being technically better somehow while getting kickbacks from the Amazon sales rep
Nurses still make good money. Programmers and web designers don't get paid well anymore because of the dot-com bust, outsourced/H1B labor, and anti-poaching agreements. Even if what you said was true, would it be better to have all those people bag groceries so that a few wealthy students could get better-paying jobs?
Assassination and boycott aren't the same thing. MLK was apparently a big fan of boycotts.
I think you have a demonstrably wrong view of how people choose college degrees - however similar things have happened before on a small scale with education being FAR from free and what you said hasn't happened. I wish the "exceedingly high salaries" situation is what had happened because businesses could easily afford to pay people well instead of racking up high-score numbers in the 1%'ers bank accounts.
You can't express your anti-public-eduction views unless you want to face the consequences.
I can't express my post-capitalist views unless I want to face the consequences.
So we both have to limit ourselves. I deal with the existence of the consequences. What's so special about you?
And at some point people will look past the bad PR. A company may not want Eich as a CEO but they'd be fine having him do project management etc. There's no point in activists worrying about everyday people with everyday amounts of influence, lost among the noise. As an extreme example, even ex-cons can get bottom-tier jobs.
Har har.
And in Saudi Arabia, men also cannot drive with ovaries. Equality!
I've actually looked over most of that information and it isn't really auditable. Most of the raw data isn't actually raw for one thing. I've compared specific land site temperature data with their sources and they don't match perfectly. Which means the data has been filtered and modified to some extent. I have no information on how that was done and can't reproduce the filtration system.
Are you saying you've got data from one of those sensors and it doesn't match the data in that source from the same sensor? Or from another sensor in the same area?
Second, the methodology itself isn't fully stated to the extent that I can't take data, input into a system, and get the same output they're showing.
I'd expect the programs wouldn't be user-friendly. Which model did you compile? If you have it running I'll see if I can find out how to make it work.
On a side note, what do you think of this:
http://theendofthemystery.blog...
Someone sent me this link in this discussion and I just want as many eyes on it as possible.
That is a lot of math to go through right now. But if he claims to have disproven something as fundamental as the greenhouse effect (or can even show that it somehow breaks down at large scales, since we can demonstrate it in a desktop experiment), he's either made a mistake or he's a future Nobel prize winner and deliverer of great news (since we could drop all efforts to reduce GHG emissions).
I found an article that claims to address his supposed disproof directly, and I'd say it makes a proof of the greenhouse effect that would require revisions to the laws of thermodynamics to disprove:
https://agwobserver.wordpress....
Where could the energy be going? If it's being teleported or stored somehow - again, Nobel prize material. Maybe cheap solar power if we can tap into this energy.
I ran across some other relevant articles on Venus' atmosphere:
http://m.teachastronomy.com/as...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
There's nothing circular about my logic or philosophy. We all have the right to express our views, but also the right to choose not to support others if we don't like their views. So expressing your views may have consequences. I have certain opinions I don't tell employers about because of the consequences. If they found out through some other channel there may still be consequences.
In this case, we have people claiming that Eich's participation in society has an impact on other people whom he disagrees with on a philosophical level, and that such behavior which is inconvenient to others is wrong. This is followed by claims that we also have the right to behave in the same way, and can actively seek to harm Eich because our opinions diverge from his. It is as if we are saying that such behavior is not wrong when we do it to someone we don't like, but it is wrong when they do it.
What? This is completely wrong. First, Eich's behavior isn't just "philosophically disagreeable" or "inconvenient." He donated money to strip others of rights. More than an inconvenience. And how is a boycott "actively seeking to harm?" It's just choosing not to support him with money or labor. If I decide the service in a convenience store is shitty and I'm not going to shop there anymore, am I actively seeking to harm that store? Would it be different if I did it because the store owner donated to Prop 8? Would it be different if it were an employee strike?
We respond to Eich's actions not simply by shooting down Prop 8, or by placing the pressure of society's views upon him, but rather by placing the pressure of society's rejection upon him: we want to exclude him from society, so that he may live a less-fulfilling life and ultimately suffer. This action is not to defend ourselves, but to inflict harm and vengeance.
The action is defensive in the same way that a sanction against North Korea is. We make it harder for those who work to harm us to get the resources they need to do so, until they decide they no longer want to harm us. Any harm they suffer is just a side-effect.
Facebook's Wealth Demands Unlimited Slaves
He has that right. But we also have the right to choose not to support him.
I disagree but I understand your point. But where do you draw the line about what behaviors it's OK to oppose? For example if you oppose people's right to go nude in public that would seem reasonable, but if you try to oppose anyone's right to reproduce you'll be considered an abominable monster. Somewhere, there's a line to be drawn. And I think opposing people's right to enter consensual sexual relations is definitely in the "abominable monster" zone. And I'm always against denying rights to people based on sexual orientation. I don't even care if it's some tiny and relatively unimportant right in that case, I just abhor bigotry.
So in turn you support Evangelical Christian companies boycotting people and causes in favor of gay marriage, abortion, etc?
Yes, they have just as much right to boycott as the rest of us.
OK with CEOs limiting services to people who disagree with them in their company?
I'm pretty sure that would be illegal and for good reason. We have laws to reduce the abuse of power by individuals with power. Same with the Hobby Lobby case, they want to defy the law of the land for religious reasons. So I disagree with those, although it's because I prefer regulated capitalism over unregulated capitalism. It wouldn't be very far down the slippery slope from there to requiring employees to vote one way or another to stay employed.
How is the pro-gay crowd intolerant? Where do they discriminate against people based on traits they can't control? Did you read my post at all?
We do it for straight couples so why not? I see it as, should we extend the same rights to gays that straights currently enjoy?
(or in the case of Prop. 8, where the rights were already in place: should we deny these rights to a specific group?)
I would prefer if it weren't possible for one non-politician to have more influence on government than another, but I am openly pro-tolerance and anti-oppression, and I do agree with what Tim Cook is doing. Nothing hypocritical about it.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
