Captain, obvious.

Had to editsorry

Damn he has been good every single he puts out. I dont know what it is but there are some great new rappers coming out with their style.

Tyler the Creator,
Donald Glover a.k.a Childish Gambino
XXxTentatcion
Rich Chigga
Joji (depends on track)
Khalid
Jessie Reyez

And thats only American, British Rap has a whole other list of great names going for it.

Why do these shootings have to bring toxic language, someone died, respect their lives even if you disagreed with them. And gun restriction never protected a nation, but a nation in tune with its political rights and liberties always kept their government in check even without guns.

If people really fear the overthrow of their democracy, then an educated population is the best at protecting the nation into becoming authoritarian. Gun rights never do it, as all it ends up doing is allowing gullible idiots to buy guns and sacrifice their liberties and enforcing their beliefs on others. Why civil wars become bloody, because families turn on each other. Only now half the country will be with the authoritarian government and the other half wont, while most will try to keep their head low and lament the fall of their nations, while trying to survive and get food on the table. We have seen it before,Rome, Greece, Germany etc.

The authoritarian groups never need to ban guns first, they need guns in the hands of their supporters, it is after they take control they take it away. But by then everyone who could resist them has been killed or persecuted.

The movies sucked hard, due to writing and story line.

On the other hand with what was given it is amazing how badly they came out. I mean the overarching story line is great the whole concept behind it was great and had alot going for it, the soundtrack is also great and the fight scenes were fun. But the best way to put it, the ham fisted pandering with the love scene in the second movie and Jar Jar Binks in the first movie, i mean they could have made them better and not pandered too much. Jar Jar Binks and they could still be pulled off it someone competent was given the job of writing.

But the main reason i feel people miss it,is that it felt original and expanded the universe. Unlike the new movies which feel for me personally just clone copies, uninspiring and depressing. Well thats what you get with JJ Abrams, the Star Trek fans warned us and we did not listen.

Honestly is it just a reskin battlefield or actually like the old battlefront games where it is mega battles.

Don't need huge player population on map, just fill the rest with AI and have players take part in it. Have a soldier count that ticks down per death and when it reaches zero for one side they cannot respawn until objective is completed by either side or all soldiers are eliminated.

Quote from: Risay117 on October 04, 2017, 02:50:16 PM

Why are people spreading the name of the killer and making him famous, just to get some imaginary laugh out of some stupid memes?

I thought we went over this before, that popularizing these mass killers helps the other guy to jump in because he/she sees the possibilities available and can jump to that decision because of them.

Anyway what happened has happened, mourn the dead and hope for the best. Expect it to become political the way these things always are.

Degenerates like you belong on a cross.

And inquisitors like you belong in the church flagellating yourself in ecstasy to your own euphoria of being rightious.

Sent from my ONE A2005 using Tapatalk

Why are people spreading the name of the killer and making him famous, just to get some imaginary laugh out of some stupid memes?

I thought we went over this before, that popularizing these mass killers helps the other guy to jump in because he/she sees the possibilities available and can jump to that decision because of them.

Anyway what happened has happened, mourn the dead and hope for the best. Expect it to become political the way these things always are.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-labor/key-employment-dispute-leaves-supreme-court-divided-idUSKCN1C71RP

Liberal U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday defended the right of workers to bring class-action claims against companies but their conservative counterparts who are in the majority sounded skeptical in the biggest business case of the court's new term.

A win for employers would give the green-light to an already growing trend in which companies require workers to sign arbitration agreements waiving their right to bring class-action claims either in court or before private arbitrators.

About 25 million workers are already bound by such agreements, according to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute think tank.

The nine justices heard roughly an hour of arguments in the case on the first day of their new nine-month term. They also heard arguments in an immigration dispute, and have a series of major cases lined up in the coming months regarding voting rights, religious liberty, union funding and other issues. [L2N1M81Y3]

Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said he was worried that a ruling against the workers would imperil "the entire heart of the New Deal," laws and programs enacted in the 1930s under President Franklin Roosevelt to help workers during the Great Depression.

"I haven't seen a way that you can, in fact, win the case, which you certainly want to do, without undermining and changing radically what has gone back to the New Deal," Breyer told Paul Clement, a lawyer representing the employers.

Employers have increasingly required employees to sign waivers to guard against a rising tide of worker lawsuits seeking unpaid wages. Class-action litigation can result in large damages awards by juries and is harder for businesses to fight than cases brought by individual plaintiffs.

Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ability of workers to join together to bring claims against an employer was the "driving force" behind a key federal law enacted to regulate labor disputes.

Many cases involve claims that, if brought on their own, would represent such a minor dollar amount that they may not be worth pursuing because of legal bills alone, Ginsburg added.

"That's why this is truly a situation where there is strength in numbers," Ginsburg said.

The court has a 5-4 conservative majority but two of the five conservative justices were silent: Republican President Donald Trump's appointee to the court, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas, who typically does not speak during oral arguments.

'FORGET IT'

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the swing vote in major cases, asked questions that signaled sympathy to employers, as did two fellow conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

Kennedy indicated that a loss for workers would not prevent them from acting in concert because they would still be able to join together to hire the same lawyer to bring claims, even though the claims would be arbitrated individually. That would provide "many of the advantages" of collective action, Kennedy said.

If the workers win, "it seems to me quite rational for many employers to say, 'Forget it, we don't want arbitration at all,'" Kennedy said.

The three consolidated cases that came before the justices involved professional services firm Ernst & Young LLP[ERNY.UL], gas station operator Murphy Oil USA Inc[MOUI.UL] and healthcare software company Epic Systems Corporation.

The Trump administration sided with companies, contending that the agreements are valid. In a rare occurrence, the administration faced off against an independent agency of the federal government, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The Justice Department in June reversed the government's previous position taken in the case under Democratic former President Barack Obama, deciding not to defend the NLRB's stance that these employment agreements were invalid.

None of the justices addressed the flip-flop on Monday.

Justice Department lawyer Jeffrey Wall said the NLRB made a "pretty radical move" five years ago when it claimed a worker's legally protected right to act together to improve the workplace included the right to class-action lawsuits.

Federal labor law does not stretch so far that it prevents a court from enforcing an agreement to bring claims against employers in individual arbitration, Wall added.

"You can be protected from dismissal for retaliation when you seek class treatment up to the courthouse doors or the doors of an arbitral forum, but once you're inside, you don't have an entitlement to proceed as a class," Wall said.

The NLRB argues that the waivers violate federal labor law and let companies evade their responsibilities under workplace statutes. Workers have fought back against the waivers, arguing that the cost of pursuing their cases individually in arbitration is prohibitively expensive.

A ruling is expected by the end of June.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley and Robert Iafolla; Editing by Will Dunham)

TLDR:

It is being argued that the waivers companies get workers to sign to keep them from taking part of class action lawsuits for unpaid wages and the like should not be legal, and that these waivers to against the basic labour rules.

Forcing workers to sign waivers to agree to arbitration instead of resorting to class action lawsuits, which has become a growing trend in the workforce.

The supreme Court is split on this where liberal judges supporting the right for workers to go for class action lawsuits instead of being forced into arbitration. One argument in support is Ginsburg and his arguments are as  stated below:

Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ability of workers to join together to bring claims against an employer was the "driving force" behind a key federal law enacted to regulate labor disputes.

Many cases involve claims that, if brought on their own, would represent such a minor dollar amount that they may not be worth pursuing because of legal bills alone, Ginsburg added.

While conservative judge have been opppsed and their arguments can be summed with this blurb.

Kennedy indicated that a loss for workers would not prevent them from acting in concert because they would still be able to join together to hire the same lawyer to bring claims, even though the claims would be arbitrated individually. That would provide "many of the advantages" of collective action, Kennedy said.

If the workers win, "it seems to me quite rational for many employers to say, 'Forget it, we don't want arbitration at all,'" Kennedy said.

So after that long TLDR, which side do you agree on?

This is a graveyard

70k a year job or higher, no student loans and a house to boot, with a modest mortgage.

Or overseas working and training to be pilot.

Quote from: Boomdeyadah on September 22, 2017, 09:53:48 PM

Wow look, still nothing happening. But WW3 is still around the corner, r-right?

But... but we should be scared of a country that keeps nuking a mountain that will dump radiation into the region and basically Chernobyl themselves!

Expect an atmosphere level test of a H-bomb next. After that it will likely be missile test to test where the payload will fall.

Once upon a time, but cut it off recently.

Knowing how this board is filled with stupid click bait headlines based on the same old topics of race and religion, using the same talking point that have been repeated to death that they make my ears hurt due to the level of basic stupidity in these conversations, I decided to switch the fucking discussion with something at least more worthy of discussion and something new.

"Hack at U.S. market regulator displays persistent government cyber woes" - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sec-cyber-government/hack-at-u-s-market-regulator-displays-persistent-government-cyber-woes-idUSKCN1BW2X5

A major computer hack at America's top stock market regulator is the latest sign that data stored in the highest reaches of the U.S. government remains vulnerable to cyber attacks, despite efforts across multiple presidencies to limit high-profile breaches that are so frequent many consider them routine.

In recent years, nation-state and criminal hackers, as well as rogue employees, have stolen data from the Internal Revenue Service, the State Department and intelligence agencies, including millions of government employee files allegedly exfiltrated by the Chinese military, U.S. officials say.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), America's chief stock market regulator, said on Wednesday that cyber criminals may have used data stolen last year to make money in the stock market, making it the latest federal agency to grab headlines for losing control of its data.

At the same time, being only the latest major breach is not special, said Dan Guido, chief executive of Trail of Bits, which does cyber security consulting for the U.S. government.

"It simply reflects the status quo of our digital security," said Guido, who is a former member of the cyber security team at the Federal Reserve, America's central bank.

Central bank officials have detected dozens of cases of cyber breaches, including several in 2012 that were described internally as "espionage."

The U.S. federal government has sharply increased funding dedicated to protecting its own digital systems over the last several years, attempting to counter what is widely viewed as a worsening national security liability.

But as one of the world's largest collectors of sensitive information, America's federal government is a major target for hackers from both the private sector and foreign governments.

"When you have one central repository for all this information - man, that's a target," said Republican Representative Bill Huizenga, chairman of the House subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investment, which oversees the SEC.

Last year, U.S. federal, state and local government agencies ranked in last place in cyber security when compared against 17 major private industries, including transportation, retail and healthcare, according to benchmarking firm SecurityScorecard.

An update of the rankings in August showed the U.S. government had improved to third worst, ahead of only telecommunications and education.

"We also must recognize - in both the public and private sectors, including the SEC - that there will be intrusions, and that a key component of cyber risk management is resilience and recovery," said SEC Chairman Jay Clayton.

The federal government audits cyber security measures every year at top agencies, producing reports that routinely expose shortfalls and sometimes major breaches. The Federal Bureau of Investigation also looks for hacking attempts and helped spot an alleged intrusion by Chinese military-backed hackers into a major banking regulator between 2010 and 2013.

Weekly scans of government systems by the Department of Homeland Security showed in January that the SEC had critical cyber security weaknesses but that vulnerabilities were worse at three agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration.

Some agencies said they had improved their cyber security posture since that report.

A GSA spokeswoman said the agency has not had any critical vulnerabilities in the past six months, and that the ones identified in January were patched in under 10 days.

A Department of Labor spokesman said all identified vulnerabilities had been fixed and that its systems were not compromised by the identified flaws.

But, he added, "addressing vulnerabilities associated with legacy systems can be challenging."

(Reporting by Dustin Volz in Washington and Jason Lange in New York; additional reporting by Jonathan Spicer in New York and Sarah N. Lynch in Washington; editing by Andrea Ricci and Cynthia Osterman)

As the hacks have hit a number of financial institution and at increasing costly damage. It seem many institutions have ignored the threat and are getting away with throwing cyber security under the bus when it comes to funding.

It also seems there has been a disconnect between government security bodies with defense planning with groups like NSA focusing on offensive planning creating gaps and undermining international standards, by purposefully creating backdoors and weakening the ISO standard. This has led to the world pushing back at any future attempts by NSA to propose any future ISO standards.

https://www.wired.com/2013/09/nsa-backdoor


As the cyber space is still free and open, it seems standards are little if not non-existent. This allows for a wild west situation z where multiple nation's and private groups have gone crazy on the internet attacking each other. This has potential of becoming quite a dangerous escalation, with Stuxnext showing how close one can go from virtual to.phsyical damage to an organization, which could in a sense lead to an escalation of war. Not only this, this attempt of arms race has become increasingly dangerous and have backfired against the US and other nations.

This wild west scenario has caused some to call for a code of conduct and a certain guideline to how to approach nefarious activity whether state sponsored or not, and to define what consists an act of war or a sanctionable offense.

Anyway thoughts on this?

Bruh, people shit on Negan and Shane but that's what it takes to survive. Zombie apocalypse ever drops and my moral compass goes out the window. When society crumbles no one holds on to their morals, those that do don't last long.

Does not help long term survival as that destroys any hope of survival. After all humans have always succeeded when in groups.