There are a lot of hackers that can access your personal information and other data so its better to use some hotspot or other VPN programs that can change your IP address so that your privacy is more secured than just search without it. Of course lack of privacy can result to different behavior and most of teenager now needs privacy.
This is one of the things that VPN providers want you to think -- they want you to think that they're providing protection against anything on the internet when in reality all they do is change your IP, and maybe stop some DNS leaking. Which is great for certain things, though you should also be using a VPN in combination with firefox, privacy badger, ad blocking, blocking cookies, etc. A vpn wont stop the tracking that sites do on you -- but you do have the ability to stop the other things. |
|
|
|
^^^ But consider. Mexico is going to legalize drugs. What will happen to the price of drugs in the USA then? Seriously.  Probably nothing. Even in markets where drugs (like marijuana) are legal, there is still an illegal market present due to it being cheaper then the illegal market. Look to Colorado to see this. So we're still going to be importing drugs from Mexico -- could be both the legal markets and the illegal markets, though this is dependent on the taxes on where. But the flow of drugs isn't going to stop from Mexico. |
|
|
|
if we leave without trade deals GREAT.
i say this because if we cant import cheaply.. we then go back to making our own again = more jobs, farms, self sustainability.
that said vn if we dont get the EU central crew to agree to a deal, we can just do independant deals with the 5-6 main countries that border the continents coastline facing us.
after all we dont need to worry much about italy, poland, and such as the delivery trucks have to pass through france or germany so we only ned to have a deal with those gateways to get stuff to us
as for anyone thinking there is no way countries will do deals.. well america, africa, south america, russia, india, china etc are not EU partners but they have deals. so obviously so can we.
what people also keep forgetting is the UK is part of the commonwealth and the EU rely on the UK to get through to commonwealth countries
but anyway, the main benefit in a worse case scenario is that if it costs more to buy eu stuff, we simply mess with the pound/euro exchange rate to compensate for the change and soften the blow. aswell as not import as much by making more of our own.
if you really think that not being in the EU is a bad issue then 150 countries that are not eu must really be suffering..(but they aint)
Eh, that's not how the world works these days and thats not going to be best for the consumers and companies of England. You have to understand that while Globalism has hurt certain people -- think of factory workers in the US, or something along those lines -- these savings have been passed along to the consumers as the cost of goods have decreased. If you are to shut off your country to the outside and try protectionism you're going to be shooting yourself in the foot. Here are some of the reasons. 1. Your country may not even make all of the goods that you import. Could hurt consumers that need certain goods. 2. Your country most likely is going to make the goods that you've been importing for a more expensive price - meaning consumers are going to have to pay more for the same goods (maybe even less quality) 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. Free and fair trade deals are what the world needs. |
|
|
|
It seems they've always had these high standards when it comes to "environmental issues". I remember taking orders for car parts and searching through the catalog I found that the catalytic converters required for cars there are more expensive and are supposed to be "better" than what is required in other states (if even). however im sure california squanders the gas tax revenue on bullshit like infringing on personal freedoms and corrupt government contracts. Not where it actually needs to be spent.
Or enforcing bans on backyard cookouts or giving free syringes to heroin addicts. Is that you saying that the same catalytic converters are being sold in CA for more money just simply because its California and people know they can get away with it? If so, that's sad. I don't think giving out free syringes to heroin addicits is a bad thing though. I'd rather have them shoot up in a safe space, where medical volunteers (and hospital staff) are ready to help if need be rather then have someone die along in their apartment / house due to them overdosing alone. You can also use this opportunity to get people onto the right path, or try to. I don't remember all the exact parts but basically only a small portion of the converters in our catalog can be sold to California residents. When I asked our manager he said the laws were tough there. And yes, they are more expensive than the other converters. Platinum something. I don't agree with the shooting up in public part. If they wanna they should put those people in rehab, not let them shot up heroin in public and litter the streets with health hazards. I mean these people aren't shooting up in public when you're going to a location. You're physically going to some sort of clinic, being given a syringe and a 'room' (could be a real room, or a small private area) then you shoot up your heroin, probably stay for a little while and then leave. This limits the amount of LETHAL overdoses (as there are medical staff trained there to help) and the amount of diseases that are spread through people using and reusing needles. |
|
|
|
I think it's a good idea and it's not the first time it was brought up. We can see what making something illegal leads to on the example of the prohibition. People were always drinking just like they were always smoking something. Indians were taking drugs and their societies were not unproductive or full of addicts. This is a part of our culture but since it became illegal it gave birth to cartels just like prohibition made Al Capone. Making drugs legal would give money to the government, but it would also make some coppers unemployed and those coppers, their bosses, their friends and families will fight for the things to remain the way they are.
I agree the war on drugs has failed miserably. Marijuana prohibition being the biggest joke of them all by miles. Hard drugs I’m open to debate on this. But I can tell you while working with law enforcement daily ..they are not concerned what so ever about drug prohibition. In fact the vast majority not only hate that marijuana is illegal, they want to help it prosper. My company holds the city’s retirement plan and I help them understand investing and planning for retirement. A sizable % of law enforcement ask me what marijuana stock they should be buying and if their plans mutual funds have pot stock holdings. They aren’t concerned of losing their jobs and often admit they’ve got plenty of more important stuff they could easily be doing than making dope stops / arrests. Eh. I don't think that people should be getting involved in investing in marijuana stocks. I think they've boomed a good amount and for no good reason. As there's no gurantee that the companies of today for Marijuana are going to be the companies of the future, and the indexes that are out now don't protect for that like something like a broad index -- like VTSAX from vanguard -- protected from. I wouldn't be investing in the sectors companies. Unless you're getting involved on the macro scale. |
|
|
|
|
Not sure if this is something that could be added to the bot, but would it be possible to ban notifications from a particular user from the bot?
Bot is amazing by the way Piggy, been great throughout my time here!
|
|
|
|
Because that's what he does, that's his only role on here. He just spreads misinformation on here, probably on twitter, instagram, facebook etc as well (and if he doesn't use those, maybe his own blog, steemit, etc)
So yeah. Unsure of why someone like this is going to continue to spread misinformation, but they have their fun doing it.
Excuse me little boy? You have a lot to learn about the world, but I am sure you have it all figured out before you have reached drinking age. Just because I discuss issues that your favorite pasteurized and regurgitated corporate approved mainstream media platforms doesn't mean I spread disinformation, that is just a sign of your own cognitive dissonance being unable to discuss concepts you don't agree with and instead making character attacks. That's fine, though, ultimately it is you who will pay the price of your blind allegiance to your corporate overlords. Just don't forget people like me who's faces you spit in for simply trying to introduce you to new ideas when you do finally put on your big boy pants and realize how much you don't know. Alright. Blocked. |
|
|
|
Somebody does it already. There is a cannabis coin, I guess that soon there will be MDMA Coin and others.
But then again these coins do nothing. They have no real value and could be replaced by ANY OTHER COIN THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING USED NOW. Cannabis sales could use Bitcoin, BCH, XMR, etc. They could use anything. They could even make an ETH token if they want to. Why do you need a dedicated coin for any sort of sector? There's no reason. These devs are just trying to leach off different causes to try to make money with no future for the coin. All of these coins are a waste. |
|
|
|
Isn't that how most of the online BS news works anyway? Though people will always remember that you get more clicks if you write things like "THE END OF FREELANCE JOUNRALISM" or something crazy along those lines.
God damn. This isn't going to effect anyone. As usual you miss the forest for the trees. Instead of taking clickbait titles into account and integrating that information, you just dump the whole of it (as if the mainstream media you worship at the feet of don't do exactly the same thing). This is a category error. There is no such thing as bad information, only useless interpretations of it. This is clearly misinformation: "Journalists PANICKING After CA Law Effectively ENDING Freelance Journalism" Freelance journalism isn't being "ended" in any sense of the word. And you felt the need to perpetuate it as if it were legitimate. Why? Because that's what he does, that's his only role on here. He just spreads misinformation on here, probably on twitter, instagram, facebook etc as well (and if he doesn't use those, maybe his own blog, steemit, etc) So yeah. Unsure of why someone like this is going to continue to spread misinformation, but they have their fun doing it. |
|
|
|
|
Eh, in this day and age I honestly cant even watch tv from either side. Fox is too right, CNN is too left. They both have their own twist on how they present things.
The only thing I can do at this point is read the news -- mostly the WSJ. Seems a lot better then anything else. Limits the amount of bias that I can put on myself.
|
|
|
|
|
I mean we don't know what the Johnson legacy is going to look like until its over. Even with that, we're not even fully going to know until years later. As a leader can simply be defined by the conditions surrounding their time.
Think about a President in the US that is the president during a recession that started right when his first term started. He had nothing to do with the recession, but he's going to be blamed for the recession and not reacting.
We'll see.
|
|
|
|
"THIS IS AN APOCALYPTIC SCENARIO!! I'm not exaggerating!"  What a tard. Watched it and afterwards still confused about what they are trying to achieve. It's baffling. Maybe this is a pilot test on something that they intend to apply to the rest of the country? Maybe something that's going to be used to selectively target journalists writing right-oriented pieces? With these people, it's hard to tell what they're thinking or if they are even...
See, that's the problem. You are considering a heavily biased YouTube video to be "news" instead of trying to understand what the bill was actually about. It was written mainly to help increase rights for Uber and Lyft drivers, but a particular sentence written rather ambiguously about freelance writers is being construed as THE END OF FREELANCE JOURNALISM!!!!!Any right wing incel can start a YouTube channel and get other right-winged incels fired up about issues they don't understand, so long as they blame Democrats for all of their problems. From the Hollywood Reporter article referenced by the YouTuber: AB 5's vague language prevents even the closest observers from understanding the full effects the law will have come Jan. 1. Aaron Colby, a labor lawyer and partner at Davis Wright in Los Angeles, notes that the law does not specify what a "putative employer" is — is it a particular publication, such as Rolling Stone or The San Diego Union-Tribune, or an umbrella organization, like Gannett or Tribune media, that may own it and other publications? In addition, the law does not state whether, if a freelance writer submits more than 35 published submissions, the 36th will fall under AB 5 or all 36 submissions will (35 of them retroactively). "The courts are going to have to figure that out," Colby says. In short, its likely the bill won't affect anybody's ability to make money as a freelance journalist. Isn't that how most of the online BS news works anyway? Though people will always remember that you get more clicks if you write things like "THE END OF FREELANCE JOUNRALISM" or something crazy along those lines. God damn. This isn't going to effect anyone. |
|
|
|
You cannot kill bad ideas by killing people.
You can only kill a bad idea (Islam) with a better idea.
It does matter that this rat has been killed.
Kill religions and these types of problems (ISIS) will go away.
Well no, that's not how this works. You can kill a person by killing a person. Islam in and of itself isn't bad, not at all. There are vicious people in every religion who believe that those that aren't apart of their religion shouldn't be on this earth, and that's how the world works. But these people aren't dangerous unless they act on these ideals, and that's what Terrorism is. You're able to stoke fear in those that support ISIS by killing their leader, showing that everyone below him will die a horrid death as well. |
|
|
|
Block chains are not a fix all solution to every problem man has... Completely unmoderated SM will of course end up being abused for profit or agenda's etc. A censor resistant, borderless block chain SM will end up being a steaming pile of shit like 8chan or steemit by design.
Not only that, but why/what incentive does a private company have to even use a public blockchain? Answer: They don't even want it. That's letting the miners have the profit. And they won't do that. They'll have the chain in the existing company servers, same old top down management of the past. I mean we all know the reason that anyone would want to operate a global currency like this. It would be so they'd be able to make the interest on the money that is beind held on the platform. Lets just say they have $10 in reserves and invest it in US treasury bonds -- which is probably all they'd be allowed to do within regulatory issues. So they'd be making about 300m a year on people holding their money and transacting on the network as everything would be onboarded with peoples USD. Sounds nice right? |
|
|
|
....
Lets phrase this a different way then.
Would you rather the government have control over the monetary supply -- through the federal reserve -- or would you rather one corporation, under the scrutiny of the government, have the ability to open their own new currency?
I think its funny watching the government scrutinize Zuckerberg for what he wants to do -- when his whole plan is like a Venmo/Cashapp without using USD. Just a currency that is backed by USD.
His plan is for a currency which knows you, your spending habits, and your geo-location, your friends, everything, owned by a company that is for profit, which has shown a preference for political leaders like Hillary Clinton. But all of the data that is scraped can be done through scraping data from Venmo, Casapp, Zelle, Paypal and so on and so forth. That's something that all of these companies know about. What's the issue with having another company step into the ring to bring in some competition?s |
|
|
|
A classic example of if you can't beat them, join them.
The Duterte administration seem to be winning in drug war, they should be doing it. Mexico had been fighting the war for more than decades, since the drug cartels are already killing anyone thats on their path. Why don't they just try to let them kill each other and let the good guys live if they wanna live.
But that's not a long term plan, you cant just kill everyone in your path. All hes doing is imposing VERY VERY VERY harsh punishments for those that use/ sell drugs etc. But the thing with drugs is its an addition and it's something you can't just lose without proper treatment. @squatz1 I don’t think this is a wise idea because people will have easy access to drugs then, and could cause more damage under it’s regular influence. Even if the government were to have authorised distributors I yet feel people would misuse it, e.g. look at guns they’re freely available and see the damage they’re causing. In current scenarios people fear getting caught, and this fear will go away if it’s legalised hence I feel government should not legalise it. Are you of the opinion that people aren't misusing drugs now under the rule of prohibition? Remember what happened under alcohol prohibition? All it did was fund violent criminal cartels, and alcohol was still widely available with no quality control and no way to get restitution if product quality caused harm. You can wag your finger about guns too, but there are something like 300 million guns in the hands of US citizens. In reality the amount of gun crime we have is quite low and has been falling for some time in spite of media hype pushing gun control. All drug prohibition does is fund criminal cartels and allow the police state to infringe upon the rights of citizens in the perpetual effort to enforce unconstitutional drug laws. If drug use is treated as a medical condition rather than a criminal issue, people can get medical help and not fear incarceration, and will be more likely to change their habits. Drugs are already widely available. Legalizing drugs is not going to cause the sky to fall, except for a few racketeers on both sides of the law. People don't understand this, espically with Marijuana in the US. People are already using weed in the US and we know that, it's not something thats hidden. Though when people talk about legalization all we hear in the news is how all the children are going to start smoking, more car accidents, etc. Peopel don't get it. These people are already smoking and they just want to do it without having to fear arrest and then prosecution. |
|
|
|
Earlier today, Facebook CEO -Mark Zuckerberg had another face off section with the US senate over the Libra project https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50152062. Quite tough indeed. I am quite sure the young dude had several rehearsals brainstorming what might possibly come out from the congress woman, Lol. But he did well after all. Arguments in every of my groups today as some said it is absolutely a political propaganda and some relating it backward as facebook played a huge part negatively in the past US presidential election. That you can as well get more information from #TheGreatHack by Netflix. The senate is of the emphasis that Libra would stage to harbour financial crime and unscrupulous behavior from the users. Follow link to see full gist. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50152062I am forced to think of blockchain technology as a solution to this mess faced by the young billionaire. VID as an example is a video centric social media that uses blockchain technology and protocol to avoid such issues as Mark's. Using ZERO KNOWLEDGE PROTOCOL is one thing that makes it unique. See more info https://vid.camera. I am yet to agree that US is trying to tame Mark Zuckerberg. I think it is normal trying to defend in the interest of the world. Libra is an attempt at total control of the population using Facebook. FB should be broken up, not expanded. Far better, to not even allow it. Crypto currency should be open and "owned" by no one. Not Google, not Apple, not Facebook. A money system should be available to all, and without any governing body. Lets phrase this a different way then. Would you rather the government have control over the monetary supply -- through the federal reserve -- or would you rather one corporation, under the scrutiny of the government, have the ability to open their own new currency? I think its funny watching the government scrutinize Zuckerberg for what he wants to do -- when his whole plan is like a Venmo/Cashapp without using USD. Just a currency that is backed by USD. |
|
|
|
It seems they've always had these high standards when it comes to "environmental issues". I remember taking orders for car parts and searching through the catalog I found that the catalytic converters required for cars there are more expensive and are supposed to be "better" than what is required in other states (if even). however im sure california squanders the gas tax revenue on bullshit like infringing on personal freedoms and corrupt government contracts. Not where it actually needs to be spent.
Or enforcing bans on backyard cookouts or giving free syringes to heroin addicts. Is that you saying that the same catalytic converters are being sold in CA for more money just simply because its California and people know they can get away with it? If so, that's sad. I don't think giving out free syringes to heroin addicits is a bad thing though. I'd rather have them shoot up in a safe space, where medical volunteers (and hospital staff) are ready to help if need be rather then have someone die along in their apartment / house due to them overdosing alone. You can also use this opportunity to get people onto the right path, or try to. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
I think this is pretty simple for people to understand, but the former Mexican president has fully supported the legalization of drugs across Mexico. This is ahead of a vote from the Mexican senate on if weed should be legalized countrywide. One of the biggest arguments to legalize weed is that it will choke off the cartels of one of their most vital profit making drugs. This makes complete sense in Mexico and in the US. Think about it simply: If the US legalized weed, then instead of drug dealers selling it illegally and buying their weed from who knows where -- people are going to go to the dispensary which is properly (and regularly) regulated by the state. Not only are they regulated and ensure that the weed isn't mixed with anything (very rare, but still) their is also another stream of tax revenue for the government. 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. These groups love the supply of people going to jail for marijuana and other non violent drug related crimes. That's what we have to fix in this country. What do we all think? Article referenced: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/22/vicente-fox-legalizing-drugs-is-the-way-to-combat-cartels.html |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
