Slashdot Mirror

http://bfy.tw/M9UA

http://bfy.tw/IIU

Sorry that you don't like my source?

http://bfy.tw/K9Wp

Here try this http://bfy.tw/JuBv

LMGTFY. Freaking Tesla pimp can't believe real-life!

http://bfy.tw/IzVA

Ask, and you will receive.
and here
are just a few.

Ask, and you will receive.
and here
are just a few.

Here's your citation.

Here is the main one.
Here is BI
Here is CBS
Here is Market Watch.
Here is WSJ
In fact, other than Faux News, BreitBart, and Daily Stormer, they all say the same thing. That yes, Tesla had losses but not as much as forecast some time ago.

Just for you: http://bfy.tw/FhXb

Wrong.

here is the real truth of bullying
When you say it affects no one but oneself, you are the jerk.

Here you go:
http://bfy.tw/Erz6

Perhaps you should not have included "India" in your searches?

> I was claiming there are only two ways to fund websites and that you're obliged to pick one of them

That is indeed what you were doing when you rejected the answer "Neither"

... would you prefer ads or background JS running Bitcoin miners funding the websites you visit?

Here is an example:

Q. Would you like Cake or Pie?
A. Neither, I would like Ice-cream.

Now what part of OR do you not understand?? There are AT LEAST 4 different permutations:

A=Ads B=Bitcoin
A=0 B=0 I'm NOT OK with either one.
A=0 B=1 I'm OK with Bitcoin
A=1 B=0 I'm OK with Ads
A=1 B=1 I'm OK with either Ads or Bitcoin

Gee, if only there was MORE then 2 options to crowdfunding.

What you should have asked is this:

Q. For funding the websites you visit would you prefer -- pick all that apply:

[ ] Ads, or
[ ] Background JS running Bitcoin miners OR
[ ] Patreon, OR
[ ] Donate button, OR
[ ] Other. Please specify _ _ _ _ OR
[ ] Nothing. I don't want to financially support you.

QED.

--
You can't fix stupid, but you can fix ignorant

MEDLINE http://bfy.tw/DhYS

Keep reading. Your quote is not from NPR, it's from the ADL. You know, the one that claims any criticism of Israeli killings of peaceful Palestinian land owners is anti-semetism. The parent poster is right. Check their definitions. This is freshmen-level critical reading.

No, I don't know. Perhaps you could provide systematic evidence, rather than an anecdote or two, to back that assertion.

There is and has been overwhelming evidence for years.

You may find this link helpful.

Step 2: don't click this link
http://bfy.tw/Cpcb

This isnt exactly niche knowledge here unless you're being willfully ignorant.

In the interest of saving myself time here's this for you

http://bfy.tw/CpUB

LMGTFY http://bfy.tw/CB9x

You used the term vulva, idiot. That's external.

Didn't I just explain why I used that term? Oh yes, I did.

BTW - "you don't even write like a woman" is a load of crap. How is a woman supposed to write? With all deference to male privilege? Too weak and fearful to call out bullshitters like you? All emotional and hysterical, no logic or facts? "Knowing our place?" Here's a news flash - those "good ole days" are long gone, and never coming back, you dumb hick. With that remark you've shown that women are the great unknown in your life. As I said, it was expected - your personality is the perfect contraceptive.

Nope, it's more nuanced than that; I suggest you do some research rather than sit here and denigrate real women.

http://bfy.tw/Bt9q

The real question is why you, and people like you, insist on going on and on about gender transition when the story is about intelligence leaks and the subsequent pardon. My guess?

Any guess you make other than "B-b-b-blubber Hudson keeps egging on the conversation" is wrong.

No one in the thread has said this:

Although I know that Google is not a monopoly, I am not interested in wasting my breath defining terms for you.

Just click this link.

Here you go!

We could use the earth as a massive fly-wheel.

Or the moon.

you should just have replied with proof about vi's autocomplete.

Here you go, but if you're having trouble using Google I can't imagine the confusion autocomplete will give you. Maybe you need to put down your beer in the cupholder on your computer and clear your mind.

I'm sure there will be a lot of hardening when you mention Curie on a geek site.

really?

I haven't seen anyone come up with a good reason people wouldn't use basic income to work less and be lazy. I can tell you, if I had guaranteed income for life, I would probably not ever work again.

The goal of this program is not to make you personally less lazy, so I'm unsure of the value of your contribution to the discussion.
But since I started, I'll assume you are questioning the rationale behind basic income which has already been discussed in here lots of times. Since you are lazy I'll help you out...
http://bfy.tw/A2eo

All we are saying is give peas a chance!

Jim Crow laws were not the work of progressives. The whole point of them was to thwart the progressive agenda and preserve the status quo. They were about as regressive as you could possibly get.

Science at the time said that black were genetically inferiors to whites, and progressives saw segregation and eugenics as the rational response. That is, segregation was "the progressive agenda" at the time, and Jim Crow laws were consistent with it. http://bfy.tw/9SHj

Nazism were not in any way shape or form based on the progressive tradition.

Again, you're disputing basic historical facts. I'm not even going to dignify this with a response; my parents lived through this and were subjected to the "scientific" studies of Nazi scientists. You need to read up on your history, instead of political propaganda .

No one is ever required to disclose their race, religion, or sexual orientation. While various questionnaires may ask about them, you are always permitted to leave them blank.

People are even permitted to lie on them, which I and others certainly do. In addition, these questions don't have an objective, verifiable answer: although for some people, the answer is clear, for many it isn't; race or sexual orientation simply aren't well-defined categories.

Which then raises the question: given that the information is not verifiable, has no objective meaning, and is not statistically representative, how can it possibly be used to accuse and penalize companies for discrimination? Obviously, the current situation can't stand: either you end up with government-defined categories and mandatory responses, or you can't use this data at all as part of law enforcement.

You still are totally avoiding the main subject of this conversation: your claim that anti-discrimination laws are harmful to peace, prosperity, equality, and liberty. I have asked you again and again to provide evidence of that, and you have yet to offer a single shred of evidence

You have already cited the evidence yourself, you just refuse to see it. If you look at economic progress, there was no obvious change in slope when the civil rights act was passed, and that is for all provisions of the act.

Here are high school graduation rates: no effect of the civil rights act

Ditto for median household income: no effect of the civil rights act.

The one thing where you see a big change in social indicators around the civil rights act is illegitimacy, and that's a change for the worse.

So, even minimal fact checking tells you that the civil rights act had no great practical effect on major indicators of progress for African Americans. Its repeal of racist laws and government policies was a moral victory, but beyond that it is massive government interference with no clear benefit.

If you want more analysis, I have told you to read the works of Thomas Sowell as a starting point (there are many other books, but he is an engaging writer, and has credibility and personal experience).

The problem isn't that I have failed to give you evidence, the problem is that you have shown yourself time and again to be resistant to it. Instead of reading up on the history of progressivism, scientific racism, eugenics, or reading up on criticism of affirmative action, you simply and uncritically dig up links to articles that restate your own misconceptions. And, yeah, it's not surprising that you can find such links: obviously, a lot of people have the same erroneous beliefs that you do.

Red-light cameras are a tool for revenue generation

Irrelevant. If they fight what needs fighting — and do it cheaper than other methods — than we should be using them.

Very relevant. There IS a proven cheaper method. Longer (~+1sec) yellow lights have been demonstrated to greatly reduce red light violations (to the point where one town removed their cameras since they were costing more than they made) without the increase in rear-end collisions. Why isn't this adopted everywhere? Because revenue. Google yourself, this is readily available and has been reported in the media multiple times.

growing body of evidence of their abuse

Citation missing.

If someone makes some odd, esoteric, or strange claim, then a citation is relevant. Asking for one when there's a huge body of evidence? Lame. But sure: http://bfy.tw/81id

Police body cams however are supposed to be an impartial witness.

All cameras are impartial.

Functionally true. As a practical matter, certainly not. A camera is not omnipresent. A camera only see's what it's pointed at. You can shove someone off-camera and then turn and film them (apparently) attacking you out of the blue. While they're a HUGE benefit, camera's are not the only thing needed.

If I wanted to build a vacuum tube, I'd use google and ask it. http://bfy.tw/7lcp

Turn in your nerd card. Classic SF Reference. . Or consult the Jargon File

Seriously, if you don't understand something, look it up. . .

Please use a dictionary yourself, and look up the word "tantamount". Oh, wait. Wait, wait, wait. The internet and logic are probably difficult for you. I can help. CLICK THIS LINK FOR HELP.

Perhaps I should have used the word "sedition" instead?

If these aren't enough, and you would like to argue the finer points, take it up with Lawrence Tribe, the distinguished Harvard Law Professor. He knows a lot more than I do.

Wow... you missed a chunk of American political history.

There are a number of explanations on how and why the party of Lincoln became what it is today, and how the parties basically exchanged platforms. Certainly, the switch started happening before the Civil Rights Act in 1964, but there was a widespread swing after that act where southern Democrats switched to the Republican Party.

The references to this are all over the place: http://bfy.tw/6mFZ

http://bfy.tw/3hzT

Do you have statistics for the aforementioned rapes and robberies? -PCP

http://bfy.tw/66gm

Why post as AC, troll?

To everyone else, I am not feeding a troll. Click the link...

Personally I'd be suspicious of such a thing. I mean just think of all the expense supporting customer complaints from parents whose kids made purchases. I'd think to my self "maybe I should make sure that's the case."

You mean something like this?

Time to grow up kid and let me help you out. Then again, you do seem to be taking something from their playbook. Unable to dispute anything, and goes right for the insults.

http://bfy.tw/5C3g

http://www.heritage.org/resear...

http://journalistsresource.org...

Just a quick grab at some examples tells me you at talking shit

If you think you can prove economic relationships by cherry-picking some examples, you are an idiot, and the four examples you cited don't even support your point, such as it is.

Meanwhile...

https://next.ft.com/content/39...
http://bfy.tw/4qlU

LOL no there are not "valid legal arguments". There are loser arguments made by losers but they're not valid nor legal.

Copy Right is the right to copy given to the original author (for a bit).

"Scholarly" blah blah blah useless crappy people like you who take other people's work and put it out again and claim YOU hold the rights to THEIR work, NO. That's not copyright. That's the bullshit you spew.

It's her diary. She wrote it. It's in the public domain now. Everyone else who wrote "something on top of her work" can suck it.

Suck it.

E
P.S.
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
http://bfy.tw/3nnw

I know of honorable and good unions (and had once been a member of one - the Ironworkers).

You might want to rethink that

Lul wut? Chapstick is addictive? That's silly.

Try using it at least once a day for 3 or 4 weeks (common usage during winter especially) and get back to me when you try to stop. Better yet, research it for yourself.

I'm sorry to hear that Kotaku doesn't cut it for you. Please pick from one of these other sources.

Simple enough to figure out.

Here's a link.

http://bfy.tw/1tGv

The video on top explains most of the process.

FPGA

FYI