Follow the shiny ball people, nothing to see over here …
2 Likes
I don’t know that there is a “worse”. Everything I have seen and am seeing is inept. There is no difference in regard to performance.
5 Likes
Roger that !!!
3 Likes
Sorry guys, this happened …
1 Like
It is one of the worst things about this age…we’re now exposed to too many lunatics and their thoughts. It used to be it was a weird friend here, a creepy uncle there, a psychopathic neighbor the next street over…
3 Likes
That utter contempt and lack of respect is a sad but real commentary on the attitude of a lot of people these days. I don’t know if it’s social media that’s made disrespectful behavior more acceptable, or the feeling of entitlement pervasive in people these days, but everyone seems to believe that they are the center of the universe, and should suffer absolutely no injustice, and when a slight is perceived, it’s somehow OK to react any way you wish. So I don’t know what audio accompanies that video since I have no speakers on my machine here, but I’m willing to bet that the fellow behind the counter did not deserve that, and the ‘slight’ was nowhere near egregious enough to warrant taking a shit on the spot and hurling it at a worker. That’s a very sad video.
4 Likes
dev·o·lu·tion
/ˌdevəˈl(y)o͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: devolution
- the transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, especially by central government to local or regional administration.
synonyms: decentralization, delegation; More
redistribution, transfer;
surrender, relinquishment
“the devolution of power to the regions”
- formal
descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state.
“the devolution of the gentlemanly ideal into a glorification of drunkenness”
- Law
the legal transfer of property from one owner to another.
- Biology
evolutionary degeneration.
Origin
late 15th century (in the sense ‘transference by default’): from late Latin devolutio(n-) , from Latin devolvere ‘roll down’ (see devolve).
Translate devolution to
Use over time for: devolution
2 Likes
3 Likes
I was always more partial to Loony Toons myself
4 Likes
@paingawd! good to see you 
Hope all is well, I sent you a letter, so check your mail in a couple days.
3 Likes
If this isn’t a scam it’s disgusting. Wonder how/if they will control the inevitable sabotage of individuals.
3 Likes
All things start at the state levels then the mob makes it universal. Somewhat related to the premise of this video.
S9191 - SUMMARY
Relates to requiring social media and search engine reviews prior to the approval of an application or renewal of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver; requires a person applying for a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver or a renewal of such license to consent to having his or her social media accounts and search engine history reviewed and investigated for certain posts and/or searches over a period of 1-3 years prior to the approval of such application or renewal; defines terms.
Just in committee now but the seeds are planted.
3 Likes
@Letitia when I first saw this on Black Mirrors it was scary. Seeing that the Chinese are INDEED going to be utilizing this type of system, just makes it that much scarier. Imagine, if you will, ALL of the Facebook (social media) hacking that IS/HAS/WILL be done in the past year or so. Imagine now, that your ability to move where you want to, purchase what you want to, and/or advance in life as you would like to is now TIED to that very same platform ??
Freakie Deakie ??
2 Likes
In China its already begun a journalist was blacklisted for reporting on corporate fraud/shady activities. With his low social credit score he is now treated as a social paraiah unable to get credit, travel and even eat at certain locations …Orwellian future awaits if we continue to concede liberty and privacy in exhange for comfort and toys…
7 Likes
This I can somewhat understand. Some people just shouldn’t have guns. Unfortunately those that are responsible owners will suffer the consequences as well.
2 Likes
I mostly agree with the above, except i really don’t believe that the American Govermnent (nor any other government , come to that) is sufiently motivated to do that, nor do I believe that legislation can make much of a positive impact, though it can certainly disappear up it’s own backside in the attempt, the above being a case-in-point 
the sad fact is that Capitalism works in such a way that big industry inevitably gets bigger and bigger, and increasingly psychopathic. Our money will be spent on finding new and innovative ways to harm us, same as always, and at such a rate that legislation can’t possibly keep up. Advertising will create and sustain a market for stuff that’s unnecessary at best, same as always; and we’ll find out the drawbacks a few decades later, maybe. Same as always.
The Anarchist in me rather likes the idea of sueing the heck out of Big Mac, just because. But, then again, like you said:
Worse, if taken to extremes, I imagine that it could create an even worse economic mess than an actual honest-to-god revolution would. And I think that you really would have to take it to extremes for it to make any serious difference,
And the biggest net effect is always that the lawyers get richer, ofc. which certainly isn’t everybody’s dream outcome.
The question of how the the heck actually make those who produce stuff like food actually care about their customers’ health is an important, interesting, and provocative one. I’m not about to pretend to have all the answers, I’m just noting, here. that the legislators are pretty much in Big industry’s pocket, don’t we all know it? so we can’t expect an awful lot of help from that direction, just the odd little sticking plaster.
4 Likes
You two have it all wrong. Blocking marketing won’t do any good. After all, there is deadly stuff everywhere! For example, there are thousands of McDonald’s all over the world. Marketing won’t block them from being seen as you drive by. There are hundreds of thousands of unhealthy foods and drinks in the store. Keeping them off TV won’t help.
So, I think we should go cigarette style on it. Rather than try to make it disappear, let’s begin introducing various taxes that are aimed at discouraging poor choices. But where to start? Hmm, how about a Mac Tax. Anyone who buys a fast food meal has to pay an additional 120% Mac Tax. And keep your receipt because you will have to pay taxes on it again at tax time in April.
That’s just the start! There are so many things the governments needs to discourage me from eating… the income streams are infinite. A bag of potato chips. A doughnut. Even a salad prepared at a restaurant is not pure. If there is dressing, tax the hell out of it. Fresh mushrooms are OK, but if they are in a jar or can with salt brine, not pure. Brine Tax.
The only thing we need to figure out is, who’s going to be responsible for deciding what we should eat? Is the IRS best for this? FDA? NCIS? Help me here…
4 Likes
And you have me all wrong!
The only thing I’m against is the active promotion of unhealthy choices, not in preventing people from buying what they want And I’m also highly concerned by the way industry is entirely guided by profit, to the detriment of health, in what it produces and how it is marketed. It’s not responding to consumer demand so much as creating consumer demand. You might consider the way chemical s are added to tobacco to make it more addictive, sugar to burgers for the exact same reason, and …oh yeah! the Teflon scandal . Would we all have chosen to use Teflon -coated pans , if we’d only known what DuPont knew about it ? And would we have chosen to have our water supply contaminated with that stuff?
In short: wha tthe heck has any of this got to do with our individual choice, as consumers? Bugger all. We can’t possibly make informed choices in most instances, and all-too-often, the healthy option just isn’t available to us anyway.
Individual choice only comes into this when we talk about taxing the “less healthy” option, as you did, and I gotta say that idea pisses me off every bit as much as it pisses you off, because I really don’t trust any body to make that choice for me.
Our British Govt recently introduced a heavy-handed sugar tax , with the result that manufactures are busily taking the sugar out of their products and substitutingeven more of those nasty artificial sweeteners, most of which are known to act as neurotoxins. When I try to exercise my right to choose sugar instead, I not only have to pay more, I have a hard time finding the sugary equivalent at all. Believe me, i am really pissed off about that.
Also, the government appear to forget that sugars have a legitimate, and sometimes crucially important place in some people’s diets, eg diabetics, athletes, and people with certain metabolic disorders , like myself. Should we really have to pay for the privilege of rapidly correcting our blood sugar levels in an emergenccy situation?
That said, it’s true an alarming number of schoolchildren suffer from obesity, these days, and that something badly needs to be done about that, but taxing sugar and steering them towards consuming more chemicals really isn’t the answer. Research suggests that those chemicals might be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. On past form, the soft-drink industry probably knows more about the inherent dangers of artificial sweeteners than anybody else does, but it wouldn’t be in their interests to spill, would it?
3 Likes