Yeah. As long as we keep re-litigating and voting on gay rights, abortion, and trickle down, we can't get any other issues on the national docket.
When do we get to vote on issues like: - 4th Amendment - Privacy - Intellectual Property
No candidate ever needs to take a stand on these issues because they're overshadowed by the rerun issues, or worse, "email!". As long as the people don't vote on these issues, the "machine of gov't, both D and R" will keep taking it in the direction it chooses.
No. It's the education. There is negligible resource scarcity in the USA, and in fact, your argument is provably false because the Americans with the fewest resources procreate more than average.
- Educated women have income, options, other things to do. They don't see endless child-rearing as their entire life's calling.
- Educated women also don't worry about starving in retirement, so don't need many children to assure they have support. Instead, they can earn money and invest it!
- Uneducated women/men are often in poor countries with high mortality rates. The only way to assure a couple of children in her old age is to bear 6+ children. This is a strong motivator. Educated women buy healthcare, and expect their 1.9 kids to outlive them.
- Uneducated women/nen are encouraged to have more children by tribal leaders, in order to increase the strength of the tribe. This does not really apply to educated women.
It seems unlikely, but you appear to have not interacted with many educated women. You should also visit some countries where women's progress is withheld, and listen to women there.
I know this requires seeing things as a community, not as a selfish actor, but consider:
We in a town, state, our country, make up a community of people. We ALL mutually and EACH individually benefit from a stable, productive, healthy, and educated community. Separating out education, it benefits ALL of us because:
- educated people make better employees for people who want to grow a business - educated people make better co-workers - education wildly increases productivity of the individual - educated people tend to have fewer children - educated people vote better in a democracy - educated people commit fewer violent crimes
So, education is offered by government, NOT to educate MY kids with MY taxes, quid pro quo, but rather because it is a smart investment for the community to educate ALL its children.
It's very fair. Stop whining and pay.
PS: I also pay taxes for lots of services I will never use. That's the nature of working as a community, not an individual. I never drove on Hamilton Ave. in my town, should I go to my Mayor and as for that portion of my taxes back?
IF - automation is transferring income from Labor (L) to Capital (K), as robots take the jobs of L
THEN - The income is already in the process being redistributed from the workers to the wealthy. Finland is merely seeking to stop the redistribution.
SO - Taxing K income at a reasonable rate is where the money comes from, and then distributing it as basic income.
Many on the right like to act like any income received without having to work for the income will result in lazy people just slacking around. They act like our American system would crumble if people got paid but didn't work. I dunno. Maybe. Let's watch Finland.
Yet those same on the right don't seem to have a problem with wealthy people with capital earning money on their investments without working for it. They have no problem with inheritances so some families never have to work, but just reap dividends from their K.
We've already got people who make money without doing work for it. Why no anger at this group? Why is it only the worker who is scorned when they get a work-free income?
That news is absolutely NOT, fake, and I bet even you will agree with me in a minute.
1 - Do you agree that scientists and climatologists with degrees, pedigree, and working for real research institutions and universities are studying climate?
2 - Do you agree that these climatologists are producing lengthy, detailed research reports with data that support some conclusion, whether they are telling the truth, or even if they are lying?
3 - Do you agree that some substantial portion of the have concluded in their research that climate change is real and caused by human activity?
4 - Do you agree that those researchers publish their work, and seek publicity, interest, and newsworthiness in their findings?
OK, so, now, if a news reporter reports on this research stating what the researcher's credentials are, and summarizing the findings, is the news fake? No. The news is real. It is truthfully reporting the findings of the research of an accredited climate scientist.
You may think the scientist is lying, but the news isn't.
Oh, and you're wrong. I hope a climate scientist shows up at your job and tells you you suck at it and you're lying. The kind of conspiracy you guys propose exists is impossible to set up, and even less possible to conceal. Climate scientists are smart, educated people. They don't need to work/study climate change. If it were fake, they would not NEED to fake it to have a job. They would easily find some other job in the sciences. These are curious people that follow their interests. None of them want to waste their short career/life working on something fake.
So, we already have independent third party nationally recognized and trusted testing Laboratories like UL. UL provides a certification for thousands of consumer electronics devices, to assure the customer that they won't shatter, catch fire, explode, short-circuit your home, emit too much RF, and a variety of other risks.
Many of the IoT products we're talking about here (in these DDOS bot nets) already have UL certification. So UL (or other certification labs) should add a test of whether a product meets some basic Internet security standards, and just make that part of their certification.
In fact, it's kinda lame on them if they don't do that already.
So, why is there no involvement from the Telcos here? The Law Enforcement agencies are setting up a man-in-the-middle attack in their networks, they are transmitting on their frequencies, they are degrading the quality of the cellular service.
Why no outcry from carriers? Something's going on there.
Karl, you wrote "But then again, many websites aren't giving up on comments because it's really all that hard to save them, they're giving up because it's just easier and cheaper to ignore these users completely, "
Isn't it also true that many websites are killing comments sections because they don't want to bother or are afraid of legal actions, law enforcement inquiries, and brand damage of being viewed as "responsible" for all the content on their site, even if it was posted by third parties?
I know Techdirt often talks about Section 230 protection, but most people have never heard of it. It is not all-powerful, and it doesn't stop lawsuits and attacks, even if they can be won using Section 230. An easier solution for websites is just to kill the conversation.
It's chicken shit, and as you wrote, it sends all the community, and thus all the valuable business to Facebook. And then the news companies complain about how Facebook is making more money than them.
It won't happen, but Section 230 needs to be its own separate law. It needs to be publicized and well-known. It might even rise to the importance of meriting a slot in the constitution. Otherwise, conversations will be killed for expedience.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now Trump is a book burner?
Baron. I know you are right here, but consider that:
"I heard an interesting interview..."
is not you citing the most reliable source.
I'm sure the AC you are arguing with also "Heard it on the TV" that "fake news" is a liberal conspiracy to silence the truth tellers.
To the AC, "fake news" is not just anything libs don't like. It is stuff like "Obamacare to instate death panels" or "Assange feared dead" or "FBI agent in Weiner emails found dead" and other shit that is patently false, but is clickbait paydirt that is gobbled up and shared by twice as many on the right as the left.