|
Could we talk about the amount of spam the CryptoTalk sig campaign is causing on this board? Most of the people posting here from their campaign are just spamming random BS.
We have enough useless spam here, we don't need this.....
|
|
|
|
Even if you don't watch TV, the programming still gets directed to you passively via 3rd parties who do. That is the wonder of propaganda, it spreads like a disease.
+1 to that. Though I must say cutting TV out of my life and going straight to reading articles makes life a lot better. Even if you know you know there is the bias of the writer (which there always is a bias of everyone, even if it is slight) its much better then hearing people scream from your TV about how Trump is the best or the worst (depending on CNN/Fox) Media affects everyone. Like it or not. |
|
|
|
guys i told you BD has no clue he has no personal experience..
he is just a armchair activist watching youtube videos thinking he is changing the world but has no clue how the world actually works.
he cant even tell the difference between a human biological ability and a human right
he cant even tell the difference between a human human right and a civil right
i mean its not that hard.
all he has to do is look at his arm moving freely when not doing a crime vs arm shackld up in cuffs if doing a crime.
all he has to do is look at things like slavery vs citizens.
he has no clue about the constitution and stuff.. like how it was formed to declare america as a separate thing from other countries such as the british centuries ago. thus by being separat and being amrican differnt rules apply to different groups of humans
he dont even know about things like womans right to vot where the civil laws can change more often then he thinks
he doesnt know what jurisdictions are their boundaries or what they cover, who gets what, who's excluded from what.
all he can do is repeat script and words other people have said because its all he knows. he is like 5-10 years behind in any form of research on the matter as many people who first heard about the freeman stuff he is fond of soon learned all the flaws in it too.. BD has yet to come to that tipping point where he sees the flaws and then starts to think independantly and realise what he has been saying is flawed
just let him take a breather and sit back and give him time.. one day he will see the light at the end of the tunnel he dug
Can't rule out the possibility that he's the only sane one here and everyone else is crazy though. Damn Twitchy. You caught us, you've finally made the world that he lives in a reality. EVERYONE AROUND HIM IS WRONG. EVERYONE AROUND HIM IS WRONG. EVERYONE AROUND HIM DOESN'T KNOW THE SUPER SECRET CODES TO BEAT THE LAW, BEAT THE JUDGES, THE COPS, ETC. HEHEHEHEHEH HE IS SO MART. /s |
|
|
|
|
When we're talking about antivaxers I think there is a very clear distinction that must be made. As not all antivaxers are the same.
There are some people who don't support certain vaccines because the side effects on them on their child / etc are not worth the benefit from taking the vaccine. Think of people who may get extreme reactions to the flu vaccine, so they opt not to get it due the fact that it could cause more harm then good for them. This is a legitimate concern, and I think we must not forget about these people.
But there is the other group, the one that we all love to shit on. This is the group of people who think that vaccines are given out by the government in order to brainwash the entire population, or to spread a certain disease, or to spread autism, or whatever.
The first group has legitimate concerns, the 2nd group is full of shit.
|
|
|
|
Yes. There without a doubt can be. There has been many articles written about this sort of thing, studies, and so on and so forth. Take this recent quote from HackerNoon: 1.Lack of focus: Too much emphasis on independent decision-making at each level of the system can potentially create ambiguity about principal objectives and reduce their importance. Individual decision-makers may take actions that benefit their segments and not the system as a whole. In centralized systems, central bodies make strategic decisions and the rest of the system follows; in decentralized systems, governance is often complex and decision making is slow and drawn out.
2. Duplication of work: Decentralized systems are secure by nature through the concept of redundancy. Each node (participant) in the system repeats the same task that all of the others do. This creates an uneconomical system both in terms of monetary cost and energy.
3. Speed of action: Another tradeoff for the security and innovation that come with decentralization is the expected loss of speed. This exchange is prevalent in many other areas of life. For example, if you go out to eat alone, you often find it easier to decide what to order; however, if you go out with friends, attempting to reach some level of consensus takes a long time. This also correlates to the first drawback, the lack of consensus, or rather the effort required to reach it, not only slows down the decision making process but removes focus from essential objectives as well.
Given the nature of these trade-offs, total decentralization doesn’t seem to be the most ideal solution for all scenarios, so it might be worthwhile to observe the merits on the other end of the spectrum as well: It also highly depends on what you're decentralizing. If it's something like a currency like Bitcoin -- great. But if you are to want an online forum, like bitcointalk, to be decentralized, you run into issues when it comes to moderation. So -- this question highly depends on what we're talking about decentralizing. |
|
|
|
@squatz1
So essentially the common human nature of being reactive instead of proactive. You'd think with the history of drought and wildfires in California there would be an intelligent policy change in regards to combating these events. This is going to continue as long as they allow it. Geography certainly isn't helping.
Seems the politicians and officials in California care more about social issues like pushing gender neutral pronouns on everyone than they do the infrastructure of the state and well being of their citizens.
Arizona bay anyone?
Yeah, the problem is that controlled burns do cause a good deal of pollution -- probably not as much as a forest fire, but usually the biggest opposition comes from the localities near the controlled fire. As while it is 'controlled' there is sometimes where thing can get out of hand. So the people around them are nervous. You'd much rather see proactive policies -- look here for a good deal of them https://calmatters.org/explainers/solving-california-wildfires-why-dont-we-do-these-things/This source explains the pros and cons of common talking points when we're talking about forest fires. |
|
|
|
|
This isn't worrying and they didn't win anything.
All they did here was pass a resolution setting up a path forward for the impeachment inquiry and increasing transparency for the inquiry. It's pretty much a 'mandate' from the House to go ahead.
But the thing is everyone knew they were going to win this -- they have a large majority in the house and they had a unified party. The Senate is where the real battle will happen -- that's where Trump can be removed from office (if found guilty)
|
|
|
|
But this isn't going to happen on the federal level in the US mostly because of business and other interests from the people listed below:
Police Unions
Correctional Officer Unions
For Profit Prisons AND REGULAR PRISONS
Big Pharma
Defense Lawyers
and so on.
- big pharma can actually make more money supplying a 'newly available drug but your right about the for profit prisons and defense lawyers. locking up someone for drugs is far cheaper to investigate, arrest and convict than say a murder investigation is It's not about something cheaper. It's the fact that when you're arresting people and putting them in prison for non violent drug related crimes, you're going to end up with a large amount of people who are in jail -- and there is a vestered interest in keeping them in jail for certain prisons. For profit prisons make money per inmate, so they obviously want more people in prison. Correctional officer unions have more members (more employees at correctional facilities) if more people are in prison, so they dont want there to be less crimes on the books. Police unions - same reason as above for correctional unions. Defense Lawyers - Same sort of thing as above, but less cases if there are less crimes on the books. Etc. |
|
|
|
He blocked you because you're an asshole, not because he can't tolerate your ideas. If you could perhaps try to make your point without being such a flaming nugget of condescension and assholery, perhaps your ideas would be better entertained by others. Has that ever once occurred to you since you've been a member of this forum? I'm willing to tolerate alternate viewpoints just fine, so long as they aren't being given by someone who can't help but work personal insults into every response.
Worst case scenario: California freelancers are limited to 35 submissions per employer per year. That is hardly "the end of freelance journalism" or an "apocalyptic event."
Best case scenario (and most probable): lawmakers work with lobbyists/concerned citizens to make sure the bill has absolutely no negative impact on freelance journalists.
Ah look at that. Someone who understands what exactly is going on here. The intention of the bill wasn't to end freelance journalism, and I highly doubt that is going to be what comes out of it. This is a bill that was forcing companies such as Uber, Lyft, Doordash, etc to pay their 'INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS' as EMPLOYEES. As the employees in their company were getting screwed and making nothing. If this did present a real issue, it would be fixed. But until it is an issue, I highly doubt anything is done -- because no negative action will be taken against journalists. |
|
|
|
Seems like the US has also killed ISIS second in command. Which I don't think warrants its own thread, so we're going to stick everything here. Just confirmed that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s number one replacement has been terminated by American troops. Most likely would have taken the top spot - Now he is also Dead! For the people that are skeptical at all regarding the deaths: That's your view on the matter, though I don't see a reason for the US to not kill these people.....s |
|
|
|
Stupid goyim sheeple logic 101:
Pathologist says something different than so-called 'law enforcement' say so they are enemies. Everyone agrees that Epstein is dead, even enemies who disagree with each other, so he must be dead.
I'll wait for one vaguely credible reason to believe that Epstein is dead before I'll have any doubt that he is alive and happily fucking kids with all his pervert friends in Tel Aviv or wherever.
I think it's fair to say that everyone agrees that he is dead, I HIGHLY doubt that that they would be able to get this guy out of prison without having someone see -- who's not apart of their plan -- and blow the whistle on that. The debate over if Epstein killed himself before he was going to be facing trial -- or if he was killed. I think most think that he was killed. As he could've outed most of the elite as pedos and gotten them all DESTROYED. But they got to him first. |
|
|
|
It would be better to fix the problems that cause people to turn to the abuse of drugs, tobacco and alcohol.
But that's something that you can do in conjunction to making sure people are safe while using certain drugs. Drugs like marijuana should be legalized and regulated. I'd much rather have the government collect tax revenue and regulate marijuana properly rather then people having to go into the world of drug dealing which COULD turn violent. Plus the fact that we dont want people to die simply because they have an addiction. In conjunction with all of these things happening we should continue to teach about the dangers of drug use in schools. That's the best way to stop the next generation from using drugs as well. Teaching them healthy ways to cope with issues, and so on and so forth. |
|
|
|
What's the idea behind this anyway, presumably slowing the progression of the fires by reducing complications caused by burned and falling power lines?
That whole damn state is a matchbox. I feel for the elderly. Even under ideal circumstances when there aren't wildfires they don't have the same luxury to pick up and move like younger people. Others have a chance to leave and they don't.
California may be beautiful but there are simply too many reasons NOT to live there.
It's an ecological and political timebomb.
The idea behind it -- which is a good one at heart -- is that they're shutting off the power in certain areas with high winds to stop a fire from starting due to downed wires or something along those lines. It sounds good at first, but the thing is that California hasn't done anything to stop these wildfires from starting. What they should've been doing for decades is allowing for tons of controlled burns to happen. This would've allowed them to remove flammable materials from the ground, so this sort of thing won't happen again. But that's not what they're doing -- they're putting lives in danger by not doing controlled burns to control this and by continuing to turn on and off the power for areas that truly need it. |
|
|
|
|
Oh look -- the story that the internet was talking about right when the guy died is true.
Who would actually think that a pedophile with connections to other pedophiles who are rich and wealthy would just off himself when he could just expose everyone to 'get off'. Everyone knew this story was fishy. The news is probably just going to run with this for a couple days and then it will bury the story forever. That's how the world operates when the most powerful people are going to get in trouble -- nothing happens.
|
|
|
|
Just to give an insight about the drugs in general, I would like to share some information about the War on Drugs in the Philippines and why it cannot be extinguished.
Before President Duterte became president, his main advocacy was to eliminate the proliferation of drug usage by combatting drug users in a span of 6 months. This has been the whole agenda of his campaign with his famous tagline: Change is coming!, and people believed that he will fulfill his promise. It has been 3 years since then but the drug-war continues to dominate on the streets with extrajudicial killings done to most people living in the poverty lane.
Lately, he admitted that the drug problem cannot be fulfilled in his term but in fact, actually worsen when he steps down. Now, what would be the right approach to this kind of situation? Legalize drug-use specifically Marijuana or go hand-in-hand with cartels in a bloodbath situation?
No one really knows what would be the right approach but the fact that the government has been continuing with their operations and nothing has happened this past years say something about the whole situation.
I mean all of this can be explained rather quickly. Duterte is a politican, and wants more time in office to pad his own pockets and to maybe show SOME change regarding the war on drugs. That's how this whole political thing works, and even if it sucks thats still the case. Re: Best way to combat the cartels: Legalization of Drugs
Some may have points but I disagree on these. Legalization of Drugs leads to proliferation of it to some extent and ruining more lives even those who are not user. Also it depends on what kind of drugs. I am in favor of medical marijuana but not on meth,cocaine and other abused substance. Making them legal and freely accessed by anyone, does not solve the problem.
Well yes, I don't think that people should be able to use hard drugs. I probably should've been more specific when I use the term drugs, as that leaves a lot of possibilities open. When I'm talking about drugs I'm mostly referring to Marijuana. But I also think that there should be locations for people to use hard drugs safely -- not giving out the drugs, but at least the needles and so on and so forth. To attempt to save them from overdosing or something along those lines. It's much cheaper to have a needle dispensary rather then sending the ambulance and things along those lines to attempt to save them from them using too much. There's a lot we can do, but at the end of the day people profiting runs in the way. hmmm Locations for people to use drugs safely? Something like a drug den complete with amenities? A legal drug den  Seriously, this is a worldwide problem. Substance abused should not be easily accessed.Once a person is addicted its hard to convince him to stop. Drug dealers are laughing with their profit and very happy whenever there is a new user since this is a target market. Once hook, its a loyal client.I pity those lives who goes in vain because of this unscrupulous people. This isn't a place where drugs are sold, its a place where you can go when you're going to be using your drugs either way and you'd like to have medical professionals on staff in the event that you do overdose. |
|
|
|
You don't need a licence to own a car, nor to drive one on private property, such as a racetrack. You only need a licence if you want to drive your car on public roads, which (by the definition of "public") are the property of the government, so the government is allowed to place restrictions on who is allowed to drive there.
bUt nOt iF Im a sOvIeRiGeN CiTiZiEn bRo i dOnT HaVe tO FoLlOw uR LaWs /s (if needed) But in all seriousness. This is what it comes down to. You're able to own a car and drive it on your private land if ya want to -- but thats kinda useless if you want to use it for what everyone else in America wants a car for, transportation. Suck it up and pay the freight. |
|
|
|
While I do agree on broad terms that if its going to stop a wildfire, we should be shutting down the power in certain areas -- we still must understand the effects that this has on particular groups. This would help us to determine if shutting the power off is worth the risk. On one hand, when wildfires happen the most endangered group are elederly people: The usually are the most isolated, have the hardest time getting out of a fire situation, and so on. Similarly, when you are to shut down the power to an elderly group -- they are at the highest risk for issues due to the fact that they heavily rely on medical devices such as ventilators and dialysis machines to stay healthy (relatively healthy) If you want proof: All you have to do is look to the most common cause of death for 2017 Hurricane Irma, where the most common cause of death was from power outages which causes medical issues that were preexisting to go untreated. If California is to continue to do this, they must be ready for the calls from elderly and be prepared to help RAND CORPORATION - https://www.rand.org/blog/2019/10/turning-off-power-to-combat-wildfires-could-harm-the.html |
|
|
|
3. Your countries business are going to have to pay more for importing goods that they use -- decreasing profits and increasing the costs of goods. This could lead to less profits -- layoffs, increased cost of goods, etc.
first of all.. customs fees are not 500% not 100% not 50% but 10% 20% guess what. the euro/pound exchange rate has changed by OVER 20% and guess what.. people dont notice our country is used to paying £1 for 4 pints of milk in one store and £1.20 in another without making a fuss about it heck we have a store called poundland that used to sell everything thy stocked for £1 each.. now before brexit is even a 'cost' problem thy sell things for £2 and no on is making a fuss 20% increase in price wont make a difference 2litres of asda(walmart) ownbrand lemonade going from 18p to 20p aint going to deter people from acid burning their teeth and stomach lining. heck many people didnt care much for the sugar tax increase. but here is the thing imagine a farmer who makes and exports aberdeen angus meet at £10 a kg.. imagine europeans bought a kg for 11.60euro and after brexit with cost changes and exchangerate changes that 11.60euro gets the farmer £11 yep if pound hit 1:1euro 11.60 euros-20% customs tax=£11 so the farmer now gets £11 meaning we PROFIT from EXPORTING this means we make bigger farms as we dont have to follow EU quotas no more, we get to sell more meat and get more money for the meat. Ok all of that is nice and all, but all of this is anecdotal. The truth is that England needs the EU trade, deals, but that doesnt mean that England needs to be in the EU for that. Check here if ya want to see real data, instead of whatever you've built into your head. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7851 |
|
|
|
.... My point in starting the thread was really just trying to highlight what these companies are doing and how pervasive this culture of selling and buying user data has become, as well as how difficult they make it to opt out of everything (and I'm pretty sure the letter of the law is that users should have to take action to 'opt in' rather than 'opt in' being the default). I posted just to highlight this, and in case anyone was not quite aware of the extent to which these data markets are now embedded. I appreciate the advice though on specific methods to combat this as an individual user, so thanks again.
The first thing to do is to not believe ANYTHING these people say in their "privacy policies." That's a little far fetched too. Most of the stuff in the privacy policy is going to have to be legitimate and if it isn't you'd be able to go after them in a civil court (highly unlikely anyone would do this, though I cant see why it wouldn't hold up) Most of the time the privacy policy for people is going to be a COVER YOUR ASS type of thing. So don't expect to see much out of it. |
|
|
|
I didn't open your link but I agree we need more blockchain SM as substitute for Facebook, Youtube and Instagram. Might take some time for them to take off even they are just as good and the big companies don't try to kill them though, it'll be hard to wean off most people from the apps they are used to. As I see now, most people asking for alternatives are those people that are being censored by these tech giants. The majority don't have this problem - yet - so just drift along. Libra might control and they should be stopped. A monetary system should not be one which is controlled by Libra. But the monetary system being protected right now is the total opposite of 'available to all' 'and without any governing body.'
I think their issue is that they are afraid that the current censorship problem we see with social media would be also applied to Libra being that FB owns it. I believe a few month's ago there was a issue with a bank freezing the accounts of vocal right-wingers so it wouldn't be far-fetched that the same can happen here. Of course fiat is no better but if you have your physical money with you there's not a lot of ways they can make you part with it. No one is going to use this, lets stop trying to act like people would ever use facebook, instagram, etc on the blockchain unless it had a great UI. Which it probably wouldn't. Most people want this because of censorship, but at a certain point in growth for any community there's going to be censorship to please the advertisers -- as you do have to pay for server costs, design, and so on and so forth. So, yeah. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
