1stop

Aren't all "Terrorists" separatists. Like the terrorism is a means to an end (separation). I don't think there are any terrorists who exist soley to cause terror as their end goal.

Their are a fair few cultural differences in China (even just within the "han race" let alone the other "races"[0].

But I often play the thought experiment in my head: How would the US govt react to the Latinos or the African Americans wishing to create a seperate state within the US?

I don't really see it playing out that differently to what China are doing.

Is this just a case of "China has a problem that we (the US) don't, and look at them struggle with it!" kind of thing?

Like when they took down wikileaks and blocked their access to money through paypal and amazon... yeah total shitstorm that it seems you forgot... :-(

Didn't XP only get decent after a bunch of service packs? ... is that not the same thing as 10.3?

... because only Trust-fund kiddies have $4,500.

I don't feel so bad about not being a trust fund kid now that I know their funds are so meagre.

I would say go and have a look at a well run martial arts school. Ever wonder how a single "master" can teach a class of 30 people at different levels and ages without it being a complete mess?

It's advanced a lot...? And your example is to cite how a tiny tiny minority is now taught differently... Even though the broad structure of a school, class, teacher and curriculum and learning outcomes hasn't changed significantly since Plato was at school, in fact the ancient Greeks model was pretty effective if extremely exclusive.

You've been down voted to oblivion, and you can see the other responses point out some of the errors of your points.

But I'm actually shocked that given you do have access to things like free stanford courses (which of course are only free in the $ sense) you still hold opinions like the one above... It is victim blaming, and you should know better.

Marxist drivel... really? Whether you agree with Marx or not, it isn't drivel, it's pretty well thought out. While I don't agree with Marx' ultimate conclusion, he has turned out to be right about a lot of things relating to capital.

Please, please educate yourself more. Maybe volunteer somewhere that puts you in front of "the poor" so you can see how normal, and how hopeless their situation is.

Because a larger truth in this, is that you're opinion and by extension you, yourself, are the reason poor people exist. Which is such sad situation.

Rarely do two parties negotiate from a clean slate, in fact the beginning of most contract negotiations I've seen is who's slate should we start with, mine or yours.

I suspect it's to do with different industries and the use of internal/external lawyers.

No, because the manufacturers don't make all the accessories (think window tinting, etc). And the dealerships, which typically become multi-brand dealership groups can get economies of scale the manufacture typically can't.

I don't know, having been through a number of B2B contract negotiations (in Australia). It is not at all surprising for one party to make changes without highlighting. I've even seen track changes on a word document disabled, changes made, and then reenabled so as to intentionally hide word changes.

You only have to notify people of a change, if it's already signed (and generally that's because your contract will have some form of amendment system that involves notification).

Except that the largest margin for dealerships and car manufacturers is the Aftersales parts/accessories. There is a good reason they exist, it's just that companies like Tesla are offering a different business model of packaged accessories (some other car manufacturers do similar but usually on top of individual accessories not instead of).

... I'm confused about the implications of your statement. It would imply Detectives don't solve crimes, incompetent criminals do. That's a pretty big stretch of the meaning of words.

... Is this like a "Why do people get mad you have to sit at the back of the bus, it is the law after all?" kind of argument?

You mean capitalism, not economy.

I think that's a bit literal.

No one thinks all races are equal in a genetic sense, it is obvious they are different.

They should be 'treated' equally is the thing we are taught. We all have our unique genetic advantages and disadvantages, but there shouldn't be social disadvantage based on genetics. It is good we are taught this, because it requires social change.

Also to answer your points directly, they do not at all suggest races are not equal. "Asian" isn't a race, and "Working harder" is a cultural/social quality not a genetic quality. Same with black people dominating basketball, could just as easily be explained with social qualities rather than genetic. Really you have presented weak hypothesises in the form of rhetorical questions.

Otherwise, by your same reasoning: White men people are genetically superior at leading, running companies, space travel, research, etc... Where as the truth, I suspect, lies in the context of their social situation, not their race.

Custom agents in Australia at least have a kind jack-tool that they shove in the side of the zip, and it opens it. They can then go through the bag and just rerun the zippers over it and it zips it back up. Doesn't matter if they are locked or not.

I don't really know the physics of this, but it seems CMEs only really effect power supply, not electronics in general. So we are taking massive damage to power infrastructure, but that can be repaired, and there are already mitigation plans in place.

I'm probably missing something?

Really? An app can still freely write to ~/Library and cause all the problems you just said. The installer is the wrong thing to object to...

Then you have changed the point you are making. Intelligence does require communication. You admit that yourself now.

So my drone charges in another drone owners living room. Right?

well at least with the latter it implies a third problem that could be very broad and cover everything ;-)

I have not idea: But could this be why Planes will often dump fuel for a turn back.

no, but I have windows with curtains on the inside. Not the outside.

The distinction is both important, and blatantly obvious. Privacy control must remain with the one whose privacy is at stake.

> I think you need to specify your historical period and geographical region before you can claim that a great number of people had access to productive land and economic independence before industrial revolution.

Pre industrial revolution: Anywhere. You had large agricultural community (i.e farmers) typically in a Surfdom kind of relationship. So yes, they had to either pay some form of tax, or tend to land of others. But they also had land of their own, of which the could depend and survive on. "Unemployment" wasn't a thing. You also had open access to resources (hence they oil and gold rushes). These have all since been privatised.

> Who is "we" and what are the means of production that have been robbed from this person

"We" is the capitalists. Means of production is property, natural resources, etc.

> It would be very cathartic if one could just blame all the rockefellers for the economic inequality in this world but the world is not that simple.

It actually is that simple. But that's just identifying the problem. The solution to how we unwind multi-generational theft is an outright impossible one. The capitalists of today, think they rightfully own their capital, as it wasn't them personally who stole it.

> I think you are being silly.

Ad-hominem, but you are entitled to that way of thinking. It is difficult when people challenge our core beliefs, I can understand the position.

> Nowadays to give people a little more independence in developed economies would only require a sustainable model of basic income which is more of a political hassle rather than anything since most developed countries already have extensive systems of income transfer.

Would "only require", and given it's such an obvious thing to adopt, why hasn't it been? I would argue: "Because capitalists don't want it, and they are the ones in control". There are extensive systems of income transfer from the middle class. But Warren Buffet made it clear that Capitalists are largely unaffected by such measures (this is true the world over, not just the US).

Are you talking about people born into slavery? Like from slave parents. Because the transition from non slave to slave is some form of kidnapping/trafficking.

The conversion of something to property is almost always a theft of some sort.

Capital hasn't always been a lopsided thing. There was a time when a great number of people had access to productive land, and had the means to survive without relying on "employment".

The industrial revolution changed this dramatically.

I'm sure you have heard the term "wage slavery". Sure you can argue: "hey at least you know your birthday now, and technically we don't own you". But that's ignoring the fact that we have still robbed that person of free will because we have robbed them off the means of production. Saying that " they can quit if they want " is equivalent to saying a slave can kill himself if he doesn't like it.

I'm not saying that the situation hasn't improved. Slavery has changed, it is a more sustainable model now, with less chance of uprising, as people such as yourself actually defend it even though chances are, you are on the wrong side of it (I.e you sell your own labour rather than benefit from others labour in order to survive).

But it is still a massive inequality and it literally robs people of choice in their life.

That's right, don't talk about suffering now, because it used to be way worse!

How about this: robbing everyone of any means of survival short of selling their labour is the very definition of slavery. We just obfuscate it with money, but never offer a real chance of owning capital.

I'm not taking modern Western society, I'm talking historical/modern capitalism. In all societies.

Or people get paid their value, and we stop thinking it's okay for a select few to reap the surplus value of others... you know, kind of like how we got rid of slavery (except we didn't, we just paid a little more for it).

But you a receiving "someone else's money".

Every piece of property was stolen at some point even if it was sold legally after that. All major resources generally have come from such "acquisitions".