guessthejuice
Joined 8 years ago
Joined 8 years ago
I still don't understand why firefox refuses to slightly gray out their background by default. Chrome puts less strain on my eyes and that's far more important than anything firefox does well.
Every time I try to stick with firefox, my eyes get strained and eventually I go back to chrome.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i...
The same washingtonpost that recently got caught lying to the american people about syrian gas attacks and tried to dupe us into invading another country.
Next war that the lying media and politicians push, they and/or their sons should be on the frontlines and then the poor and downtrodden should be behind them.
To put things into perspective, about 4000 americans died as a result of the iraq war. Over a million iraqis died.
Hundreds of thousands of children died in the iraq war. And hundreds of thousands of iraqi children grew up without a father because of the iraq war. I guess it's all perspective. But I doubt most of the world would consider him a hero.
You get into an argument with someone in NYC and you can go your own way and never see them again even if you live in the same city or even the same neighborhood. Get into an argument with someone in a small town and everyone knows about it by the time you get home and battle lines get drawn.
Lately, there have been a vocal group defending corporate interests, globalism, monitoring/spying and censorship all over social media. Not sure why and where they came from but it's interesting how suddenly they appeared on the scene.
Spend time with your family? Time is the only thing you can't buy. How are you going to start a side business and earn income if you aren't willing to trade time with your family? There's only 24 hours in a day.
If you are a software engineer who is so poorly paid you need to look for side income, maybe look for another job? Unemployment is at all-time lows and companies are desperate for tech talent.
I can understand baristas looking for side income, why would a software engineer need one?
It's two fold issue. People question the level to which human activity contributes to climate and they question the remedy to it.
Obviously climate change has always happened. It happened before human existence, climate change occurred throughout human history and climate change will happen after humans aren't around. Nobody is denying climate change. Climate change denier is actually a propaganda term invented by one group to attack another. Similar to christ-denier and other "denier" attacks. I prefer the neutral terms "climate change proponent and opponent".
One of the major pushback against the human created climate change is that we were in an little ice age until the 19th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Com...
Climate change opponents say the warming is a result of the natural end to the ice age cycle as has happened for hundreds of thousands of years.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature....
As you see, temperatures have declined and risen for hundreds of thousands of years ( with negligent human input ). So climate change opponents claim that the current climate change is just part of the climate's natural cycle.
Climate change proponents claim that the current warming is a result of human activity ( particularly fossil fuel based industrialization ). After all, we started using oil in the mid 1800s and temperatures started to rise since then. To climate change proponents, that's too much of a coincidence and they believe humans triggered the warming with fossil fuel use.
The second part is the remedy to climate change. Climate change proponents believe it is a "tragedy of commons" problem and we need a global system to manage the problem. Their solution is a global carbon tax system which manages and controls fossil fuel use and the global economy. Climate change opponents are against the globalist policies of climate change since it infringes on national sovereignty and gives too much power to a small group of globalists who can profit by trading on carbon credits/taxes/etc ( essentially another product for traders to gamble on ).
I'm sure I'll be attacked by both sides but this is essentially the core issues of the climate change debate. Is it a natural cycle vs human created? Is the remedy worse than the disease?
SQL injections are child's play. Literally. It's last decade's "hack", if we can call it that. Using parameterized queries ( which you should be doing in the first place ) or simple defensive measures nullifies sql injection threats. The headline is clickbait nonsense.
Also it's a shame that defcon has turned into a "disney" event. Who even attends it anymore other than families and FBI agents and slimey salesmen peddling their software.
We handle it bad because the news scaremongers with hyperbolic exaggerations. The people get overly anxious and of course politicians rush to the worst possible "solutions".
I remember a while back there was hysteria over pilots not being screened. Then people found out that a pilot doesn't need weapons to take down a plane and screening pilots doesn't make sense. Common sense.
If everyone would just calm down and think things through, we'd come to more sensible solutions. And much of the time, the sensible solution is to do nothing. Bad things happen. Just the way life is. So we should weigh the options calmly and sensibly, not hysterically.
A lot of people are underwater when it comes to bitcoin.
Also, when the execs of a money losing company is wasting time with vegan activism rather than turning a profit, I suspect it's future isn't too bright.
If that were the case, the US, China, Japan, South Korea, Britain, France, etc wouldn't be major economic powers. Every major economic power today copied the US protectionist model of the 19th century to become rich. Every single one.
The US was explicitly protectionist well into the 1900s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St...
Since 1945, we became implicit protectionists while touting free trade.
Without protectionism, japan and south korea wouldn't have toyota, sony, samsung, etc. Without protectionism, china wouldn't have baidu, tencent, etc. Without protectionism, our industries would be owned by britain and europe and we'd only be a raw materials supplier.
"Washington and Hamilton believed that political independence was predicated upon economic independence. Increasing the domestic supply of manufactured goods, particularly war materials, was seen as an issue of national security. In his Reports, Hamilton argued that the competition from abroad and the “forces of habit” would mean that new industries that could soon become internationally competitive (“infant industries”) would not be started in the United States, unless the initial losses were guaranteed by government aid (Conkin, 1980). According to him, this aid could take the form of import duties or, in rare cases, prohibition of imports. He called for customs barriers to allow American industrial development and to help protect infant industries, including bounties (subsidies) derived in part from those tariffs. He also believed that duties on raw materials should be generally low (Dorfman & Tugwell, Early American Policy, 1960). Hamilton explained that despite an initial “increase of price” caused by regulations that control foreign competition, once a “domestic manufacture has attained to perfection… it invariably becomes cheaper”."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_histo...
Washington, Hamilton and most of our founding fathers were protectionists because our industries were young and needed protection against more established industries of britain.
> There is a consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare, while free trade, deregulation, and the reduction of trade barriers has a positive effect on economic growth.
When you have to lean on consensus it usually means they have no idea what they are talking about or are pushing political ideology. We have historical proof that protectionism works. It's called the US, China, Britain, Japan, South Korea, etc.
Always take evidence over consensus.
Ideas are ideas. And how do we understand the difference if one is censored? Also, there are plenty of exclusionism and hate in extremist LGBT, feminism, etc communities. It's not fair to compare extremism of one side, but not the extremism of the other side. There are feminists who believe men should be wiped out, there are lesbians who are against trans women and there are trans people who are against gay marriage. But that's not the point. The point is all ideas should be allowed to be expressed so that they can be debated, criticized, etc. It's the american way.
> In Europe, it's very common to have an exception to Free Speech when it comes to hate speech
Yes. That's why europe gave us such "wonderful" things like nazi germany, the soviet union, fascist italy, etc.
Do you know why these existed while US was immune from them? Nazi Germany censored everything they didn't like, soviet union censored everything they didn't like, fascist italy censored everything they didn't like. But we had freedom of speech. It's why the US is the symbol of freedom and not europe in the world.
You do realize that in much of western europe, if you criticize islamic fundamentalism or fundamental judaism, it's considered hate speech and you could go to prison for that right? Hell in some places in the world, criticizing religious fundamentalism is an offense worthy of the death penalty.
You sure you want to censor all hate or offensive speech? Because atheist speech and lgbt speech is the most censored speech in the world. Most of the world finds these type of speech the most hateful and offensive. Are you really advocating that we ban these speech since it offends so many?
How about we stick to principles?