Keep living in your fantasy world. Going out in a blaze of glory doesn't help anyone. Rational people know when to compromise, even if it means swallowing your pride. If the democratic party had split over Bernie/Hillary, Trump would have waltzed into the presidency without breaking a sweat. And, before you start on about Trump winning regardless, well, hindsight is 20/20, and it was a close race, as indicated by the popular vote. Trump won several key states by a hair. Bernie made the best choice he could have made at the time.
Trump appealed to those dissatisfied with our government, and that's a large group of people. Bernie also appealed to that segment, while Hillary represented everything they hated. I'm not saying Bernie would have pulled that segment entirely from Trump, given the manufactured fear attached to "socialism" (despite the fact that if Bernie wanted to get anything done he'd need to lean moderate, so worrying about him turning America into a socialist republic was completely unwarranted.) He would have pulled some of that segment away from Trump, though, and for the most part the other voting blocks would have voted as they did, which might have made all the difference.
Still, there's no use worrying about what might have been. We'll just have to deal with Trump. He won't be as bad as the fearmongering would have us believe, but he'll move in the wrong direction on several topics I care about, including this one.
I get that, but it's still disrespectful to the troops. They didn't choose to get involved in the messes in Afghanistan/Iraq. They serve as directed, and it's not their fault how they were directed. Even many vets feel that Iraq, in particular, was bungled mess, but that's no reason to be dismissive of their personal sacrifices.
Following orders under a failure of leadership is one of the hardest things that can be asked of soldiers, but it is important. We can't have the entire military deserting because they disagree with the leadership.
Like I said, if you want to criticize the civilian leaders involved, please, be my guest. Just don't belittle the sacrifices made by those who bore more consequences from those decisions than anyone else in this country.
What are you talking about? He's a vet with PTSD. You don't get PTSD without trauma (hint: it's in the name), and trauma implies danger. Doesn't fucking matter whether we were at war at the time, or whether or not military action was the ideal course of action. He was serving his country, and his country ordered him into danger. Ergo, he risked his life for his country.
If you want to criticize the elected officials involved in the "war on terror", I'm right there with you, but don't be dismissive of his or other vets' sacrifices. It's just disrespectful.
Ehhh... The one about the second ammendment is just wild hypothetical boasting, with the intent of making a political statement. The other one is actually the more concerning of the two, but it's still clearly someone venting anger through violent fantasies. Neither statement is a direct threat, and they shouldn't be treated as such. Both of those statements are, of course, quite offensive and divisive, but since when was that grounds to put someone through a "voluntary" psych eval?
Why don't you blame the ISP used to access the information while you're at it, or the manufacturer of the device used, or hell, blame Pope Gregory XIII for the calendar being used to mark age, because that makes exactly as much sense as what you just said.
No, you're fairly correct on the first one. As the number of subscribers approaches zero, the monthly bill required to maintain revenue approaches infinity.
As the cost of service increases, they lose subscribers, which increases the cost of service, which loses subscribers, et cetera ad nauseam. It's a self-reinforcing cycle, and if they don't do something about it right now (such as accepting lower revenue rates, or improving customer experience) they have no chance of avoiding the forthcoming point of criticality which starts the runaway chain-reaction.
It is possible to think that both actions were wrong. Well, actually, all three actions.
The "message" of the tweet was certainly idiotic. It was also offensive, though I, personally, care less about that than the actual ramifications of the policy it endorses.
Junior should have taken the time to find a public domain or freely licensed image, or pulled out his phone and taken one himself. Using a proprietary image for your own purposes like this isn't acceptable, and just because it's about politics doesn't mean it's fair use.
The author of the image was within his rights to take down the image. However, he did not object so much to the use of the image, but rather to the associated speech. If it had been speech he agreed with, or likely was even ambivalent towards, I doubt he would have acted in the same manner. So, here we have an individual who is using copyright not to protect the value of his works, but to stifle speech he disagrees with. That's not something that I can accept.
Familiarizing oneself and complying with regulations is just a cost of doing business. I don't think that the "burden" argument has any merit here. If there was a legitimate need for these regulations, then, unless the burden is unreasonable, it shouldn't be a concern. An unreasonable burden would be one that the majority of businesses would be unable to responsibly meet. In this case, that would mean businesses that give up on wifi altogether. I don't think that's the case here. I mean, sure, nobody's happy about shelling out, at worst, 500 euros to hire somebody to bring the wifi into compliance for them, so that they don't need any knowledge. A couple hours of research and some minor technical acumen can cut that cost down seriously. But it's not an unreasonable burden. No one is going to have to close up shop because they can't afford to comply.
Ultimately, objecting to this regulation because of the burden it would cause is a red herring. I mean, what if they provide a grant and a team of government qualified contractors to every business that wants to offer wifi. Or, more likely, subsidize business ISPs to provide compliant equipment, as most of the businesses offering wifi (at least the ones with no technical staff) are probably using whatever equipment their ISP provided. Suddenly the burden argument is gone, and the rest gets a hand waving. This should be objected to because of the horrible precedents it sets regarding privacy, not because it might cause businesses to spend some money.
Well, my point was that there's a lot of cheap hardware on the market that designed for use by non-technical people. A business could probably set something up for less than $200 (not sure if prices vary much over there, but shouldn't be far off), including hiring someone to install/setup. That wouldn't be an undue burden, if there was any merit to the requirements. Since, clearly, there's not, even the slightest burden is far too much.
Well, Gawker is trash, that's not being disputed. These reactionary take-downs aren't going to help with that image in the slightest, though. In fact, it just makes it worse, making horrible posts but not having the guts to stand by what you said. If they want to not be considered trash, they need some real editorial oversight, so that they stop posting this shit in the first place.
It's not that much of a burden. There's been a lot of movement in the last few years in the area of "Coffee Shop WiFi". There are a bunch of APs on the market that offer easily configurable entry portals, or generate temporary passwords that can be sent directly to a network connected (reciept) printer. I've even seen one that lets people login with Facebook! If that's not de-anonymization, I don't know what is...
Of course, none of that changes the fact that this is an incredibly stupid and dangerous ruling.
That's an interesting term there. While it may seem like that from the outside (and, certainly, it's nearly impossible to contact any humans over there), Google, as this story shows, is anything but monolithic. Google is more like a fuedal kingdom than a functioning company. The services all have their little fiefdoms, and compete with other services to draw in more eyeballs for ads. If they do well, they might get more engineers and a bigger budget. If they do poorly, they're on the chopping block. There is absolutely no top-level coordination, no overarching strategy to what Google does, and it results in situations like this, with them shooting themselves in the foot because the various limbs don't communicate or coordinate.
Exactly! The technology is to blame! How could anyone presume to hold these individuals accountable for their actions? The very idea is absurd! Clearly these nefarious actions were undertaken whilst beholden to the siren song of this insidious serpent named Science! These unfortunate souls are by nature morally upstanding citizens, and, absent the corrupting hand of technology, they would not hurt a fly. Why, it's not as though there's an entire history of widespread surveillance going back thousands of years, so the technology must be the impetus of this trend!
In other news, Congress recently passed a law making murder legal. One Senator, discussing the new law, said "Murder used to be a serious crime. Back in my day, a man who took another's life was considered an extremely evil individual. That all changed with these new-fangled assault rifles. Nowadays, anyone can just stop by a Walmart on the way to the office, pick up an AR-15 and a box of ammo, and empty out the whole godforsaken building! It's just so easy to kill folks these days, it seems foolish to make it illegal."
More seriously, yes, the advances in technology have created dangerous new tools that can, and are, being used to the detriment of our society. However, a tool has no moral judgment associated with it. A hammer is neither good nor evil, it simply is. Moral weight can only be ascribed to the users of a tool.
Further, the ease of performing an immoral action does not suddenly make it any less immoral. True, it may mean that bad actors are more likely to be able to carry out these immoral actions, but that does not convey a moral judgment on the tool. (Not to mention that "un-inventing" something is a fools errand.) Society must judge the bad actors directly, instead of wishing to put the genie back in the bottle.
More specifically, complaining about the ubiquity of tools that can be used for surveillance is not only pointless, it's actively detrimental to actually stopping any of the widespread surveillance. We need to focus on curtailing this activity from the top-down, putting in place strict behavioral guidelines for organizations like the NSA, the FBI, the DEA, etc., and, most importantly, real oversight with the ability to enforce those guidelines. (Of course, in the current political climate, that's not likely to happen, so we have some preliminary work to do before then....)
One last note: The casual sexism in that phonograph article is just... depressing.