Then you're too stupid to be free.
Really, that's your response to his take down of your earlier non-response?
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Then you're too stupid to be free.
Really, that's your response to his take down of your earlier non-response?
Um, yes. You also seem quite wedded to the idea that the world is a simple matter of "who's to blame" and that you can just stick simple labels on people, like Snowden is a "whistle-blower" (and not, therefore, a traitor of the highest order). Sadly for this naive view, Snowden didn't blow any actual whistles, he just dumped a ton of documents and ran. So while some of those documents may have happened to "blow the whistle" on some things, some of those documents may also have happened to cripple our intel capabilities and threaten national security. Snowden didn't distinguish those two things, so he may well be both a whistle-blower and a traitor of the highest order, and he may well be to blame for some real problems in law enforcement that have nothing to do with overreach.
This is wrong, wrong, wrong. Edward Snowden chose the reporters he talked to very carefully and asked them to be responsible with their disclosures. He did not just dump documents and run, and he did take steps to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary disclosure.
Inhaling any smoke into your lungs can cause damage and long term health problems. Chronic cough, emphysema, and even lung cancer are all possible outcomes of smoking pot. it also raises your blood pressure and your heart rate, similar to smoking tobacco.
only the ignorant or misinformed deny it has any ill health effects. its not that different from smoking tobacco.
Pot smoke has not been shown to cause cancer or emphysema. Even if there are other health effects, I'm not sure how we are helping people by putting them in jail for doing it. The message seems to be, "Don't do this harmful thing, or we'll do this other harmful thing to you."
A cop bought a video camera to catch an illegal alien unloading a firearm at bottles on his own porch, among other things...catches the guy, along with a significant drug operation no less...and the court "nixes weeks of warrantless video surveillance" is a GOOD THING? You'll notice they aren't nixing the YEARS of warrantless surveillance that every citizen of the U.S. has been under, nor the YEARS of collusion with friendly nations to extend that surveillance program to every citizen, worldwide. No, they're nixing the one bit of fucking video that might actually have been worth recording in the fucking first place. Footage of a criminal, committing a crime. How novel.
The EFF logo for this story was perfect, "extremely fucking foolish" was the first thought that came to mind.
The police can't violate people's rights in pursuit of law breakers. The ends don't justify the means.
But our rights are endowed by our Creator, and apply to everyone, not just American citizens.
There is an obvious flaw in that argument, namely that there is no such thing as our Creator.
Am I to understand that you do not exist, having never been created?
Consumers are terrible at protecting themselves. "Quality Products / Services" takes third place in terms of things that get a business to the top, after "Excellent PR Control / Advertising" and "Ruthless Business Practices". If you want to see what happens when you reduce consumer protections and monitoring, look to the third world where companies put melamine in their food to artificially inflate the protein count and fake baby formula with little to no nutritional value gets passed off as legit.
Yeah, but what about Comcast? They're the most hated company in the country. They screw their customers and no one wants to do business with them. So everyone exercised their power as consumers and sued Comcast or simply took their business elsewhere. Eventually Comcast went out of business because they provided such terrible service.
Isn't that how it happened?
What planet are you on? Or are you too young to remember how consumers got screwed before consumer protection laws. Yeah feel free to stop using the service after you get killed because your Uber driver was drunk. And it just isn't the passenger there are also other drivers who may be killed or maimed by an unqualified Uber driver. It's not just all about you. And try suing if you get hosed. You will find punishing Uber nigh impossible.
People, and free-market Libertarians in particular, have this idea that if there is a problem between two parties, one can just sue the other and it'll get worked out. They don't seem to realize that a lawsuit is a huge pain in the ass for everyone involved (except the lawyers), and is also very expensive. Lawsuits are out of reach for most people simply because of the cost. It's just not realistic.
For more insight, I would point you to Fletcher Reede in "Liar Liar", when his car is damaged by a tow company:
"You know what I'm going to do about this? Nothing! Because if I take it to small claims court, it will just drain 8 hours out of my life and you probably won't show up and even if I got the judgment you'd just stiff me anyway; so what I am going to do is piss and moan like an impotent jerk, and then bend over and take it up the tailpipe!"
Yes, it's called competition. If someone is willing to do your job cheaper than you are, then they'll get hired and you won't. It's just like: if someone will sell me a copy of "War and Peace" for $30, and someone else for $5, then I will buy the cheaper one, not the more expensive one.
You have to provide enough value to make someone WANT to employ you at that price. Otherwise, yes, someone else can undercut your price.
Actually, it's not like that at all. As I said, experience has a value. What that value is, is up to interpretation of course. But no two people are alike, so it's not just like two copies of the same book. Besides, the labor market is about more than just supply and demand. As the AC below said, there would be plenty of people willing to do a CEO's job for less than he is doing it for. But for some reason there is not a race to the bottom for the salaries of top management.
The article puts the lie to the idea that these H-1B workers are filling jobs that there are no good American candidates for. The article, and one linked in it, talk about existing workers training their H-1B replacements. So, there are manifestly American workers who can do these jobs. They are doing them right now! The article also says they are often older workers being replaced. You know what that means; these older workers are highly compensated. As usual it's about the bottom line, with humans as resources to be exploited.
Land of the free? Home of the brave? Greatest joke of all time!
Fuck the USA and fuck their corporatist oligarchy.
We have the world's largest prison population. How could we not be the land of the free?
Oh, please, Khomeini was called in for the same reason the Shah was installed, to keep the Soviets out. There was no 'revolution'.
But why was Mosaddegh overthrown?
Back some time ago a bunch of merchants won a lawsuit challenging Visa/Mastercard rules, and as a result merchants are now allowed to charge people more for using a credit card instead of paying cash.. Well guess what, I have yet to encounter one single merchant doing that. They have no choice. Once again, good old fashioned competition. If they charge more for using a credit card, they will lose business to competitors who don't.
Near me there is a gas station that charges fully 10 cents less per gallon if the buyer uses cash. Their credit card price is competitive with other stations in the area. So it shows just how much the consumer ends up paying for using credit cards.
Credit also pushes up prices in general, since you can buy higher priced items if you can pay them off over time. If people had to actually save up the cash to make large purchases it would delay the purchases and put downward pressure on prices.
At base, all I'm saying is that the US government can create enough money to get it done. The companies or industries affected would not have to worry about the cost if the government were to fill the gap. They had plenty of money to bail out Wall Street, but don't seem to have the same will when it comes to dealing with climate change. Maybe it's the imminence of the threat, as you say.
As a larger point, I'm glad we are discussing money as a means of control. Most people don't understand it as such, but that's what it is. Our monetary system is a debt-fueled societal control mechanism. The question of course is who is doing the controlling and to what end. Since money is central to all this (and everything else) I would like to see it used more for the public good, and less for private gain. That's why I said we need a new paradigm; one that emphasizes the public good, not profit. Because the need for profit is preventing us from doing what is necessary.
You can call me a socialist utopian, and you'd probably be right. I'm not saying that my idea of how things should be has any chance of coming about. But I do think it's necessary for our survival. Focusing on private gain and immediate self-interest, which is the incentive in our economic system, is inadequate to tackling such a large and inter-dependent problem as climate change. It is not set up for concerted action. But we will cling to it because of powerful interests and a lack of imagination. We are circling the drain, and it is of our own choosing.
Ten years ago I would have said you were a crank. Five years ago I would have ignored the comment. But this country has gone seriously down hill over the past decade and a half.
Corporate fraud and malfeasance is a major issue. Even things corporations do legally should be of paramount concern to the people of the US. There needs to be a disassembly (not continued over-regulation, which are two completely separate things) of the finance structure in the US, starting with the repeal of GLBA and the reinstatement of Glass-Steigel.
10 years ago, I knew the system was fucked. But it's nice that the general consensus is coming around to agree with me, more or less. It reminds me of when everyone else finally realized what a terrible president Gorge W. Bush was, or that the NSA really is spying on them.
The problems go deeper than you probably know; deep enough that you would again consider me a crank if I told you. The fraud and regulatory capture are only the beginning. Where it gets really interesting is where the corporate and financial bigwigs get together with the intelligence agencies and start spying and manipulating. They are driving world events with deception and propaganda, and doing things most would consider to be impossible.
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"