Anybody claiming that the 2nd Amendment isn't confusingly worded has an agenda.
Who are you kidding? Nobody talks like this: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". You'd fail in English class.
It turns out that the following words also don't mean the same things today as they did when written:
regulated Militia security State people "bear arms" infringed
If everything is automated, then we don't need to work to supply all our needs and wants.
If all of our needs and wants are not being supplied by these automated systems, then there's still a job to do which (per the premise) was not automated.
One obvious way is if it blows the warm air across the A/C's heat sensor, triggering it to do the actual cooling.
Another is if it pushes the heat toward areas of weaker insulation and away from areas of stronger insulation. If the outside is cooler than the inside, then the temperature will leak out more rapidly. If the outside is warmer than the inside, then the warmth will leak in more slowly.
Another is if you're in building and where a vaulted ceiling fan is pushing floor 2 heat down to floor 1. My last house was like that, and I kept the fan on constantly because the floor-by-floor difference was enormous.
Another is if the temperature was not evenly distributed within the room's bottom (eg. because one wall is an exterior wall, or one shares a wall with the kitchen, or there are electrically powered devices in there acting as heat sources). Redistributing will directly cool those parts at the expense of parts further away.
If a road gets congested, then travelling on it gets slower, it doesn't ban new cars from entering the roadway. However the road might open up carpool lanes, which effectively prioritize those people who are taking actions to reduce road congestion...
Use of a shared resource will always, always, always be subject to prioritization. That's inherent. The people using more than 26GB are already the ones who are getting the best deal out of everyone before the throttling.
(this said, I'm switching to the cheaper $50 / month plan with limited data on T-Mobile the second my AT&T contract expires, which should be before those are discontinued).
4k streaming is a thing these days. Netflix recommends 25Mbps. I imagine the majority of people don't have more than 1 4k TV today (though a significant minority will), but a 4k stream + some HD streams for other TV / browser use + miscellaneous use simultaneously isn't unreasonable. That means 50 is about the right capacity.
Although nobody is talking about building enclosures to attract lightning to your bathroom...
There is a degree to which rabies in humans is rare because people are afraid of it. And fatal shark attacks are rare because humans don't like to swim where the dangerous shark varieties are. Etc..
That doesn't mean this isn't a good idea -- mosquitoes are a disease reservoir that is typically much more infectious, and choosing bats because they suppress mosquito populations* seems likely to be a good choice. It's just an explanation for why people don't love bats. I didn't care about bats much but my parents would tell me to avoid them due to the rabies risk.
* This of course assumes it's true. I've read that there's little evidence that bats eat enough mosquitoes to make up for the fake that they eat the things that already eat mosquitoes.
$480000 sounds like a fairly reasonable payout in this case, and it sounds like you aren't entirely opposed to that (or at least the amount of her huge medical bills, whatever it is), so I don't think we necessarily disagree (except others have covered serving vs. brewing temperatures). I have a bone to pick with this argument:
Those 700 incidents were over a period of something like 13 years when McDonalds sold billions of cups of coffee. I number crunched the statistics once. If you lived 5 miles from McDonalds and drove there to buy a cup of coffee and took it home, you were more likely to die in a traffic accident than to scald yourself by spilling their coffee. If their coffee was too dangerous for the public, then so is every car on the road.
That's a pretty nonsensical argument. If I had to swim through shark-infested waters to an island to go rock climbing, then the risk of me dying from a shark attack would exceed the risk of me dying from a rock climbing accident.
Yes, cars are dangerous, and that's why their use is carefully licensed and car manufacture, sale, and driving is one of the most regulated industries. It's an irrelevant benchmark because driving cars is not drinking coffee, and even if it were relevant it makes for a very poor benchmark in your case a lot of things can be safer than cars and regulated less than cars and still regulated a lot more than coffee.
In this case, the problem wasn't even that McDonald's served the coffee this hot, it's that it served it this hot with no warning.
What's missing is that indications of life might not be strong indications of intelligent life. Depending on the ratio of worlds with life but no intelligence to worlds with intelligent life, and the mean time for intelligent life to develop on a no-intelligent-life world.
I don't see how that law applies. Microsoft didn't charge more than the list price of $0. Therefore it violated none of those laws.
At no point in that law do I see anything requiring the company to sell a product for its listed price, only requiring that it not charge more than its listed price.
All three of the things you mentioned are completely missing the point.
It's irrational to expect a dedicated 100% capacity-reserved line for every customer. It makes no economic sense. It's like expecting a dedicated lane in every highway just for you. That has nothing to do with net neutrality or ISPs sharing your Wifi.
You want to debate about Comcast's advertising, that's a different thing and you can have at it.
Obviously Microsoft knows what's best for us, regardless of what we want.
In this case, literally yes, they do.
Maybe I *want* to use a weak password
And maybe you want to jump into the swimming pool wearing full platemail armour but the lifeguard doesn't have to let you, and in fact should not let you.
I buy it on Amazon because, even though I do have time to go to the store and pick it up, why would I do that when I could just buy it on Amazon?
I do agree with you that I'm not likely to price-watch the small stuff -- that's not new to Amazon though. A price adjustment on a big-ticket item has never come up for me.
The difference is that when men don't like shows that are aimed at women, they apparently rate the show, but when women don't like shows that are aimed at men, they don't rate the show. There are shows popular with men and unpopular with women, and vice-versa, and the latter get way more "wrong-gender" votes. No particular reason was proposed as to why this is. The call to action was to recognize that single-number rating systems obscure important details in general.
And you are conveniently ignoring the whole point that if you ban something that makes someone "uncomfortable", you have to ban EVERYTHING.
Murder makes me uncomfortable. If you ban it, you must therefore ban EVERYTHING, including breathing.
I think you hate that he used the word uncomfortable. I'm really tempted to say you were triggered because I bet that word triggers you too. Oops! I guess I just did.
If a law was broken, that's one thing, but otherwise, absolutely not.
A law was broken. You can't call in a bomb hoax. You can't threaten people's lives and (with exceptions) property.
All four pleaded guilty to two counts of using threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear of, or provoke unlawful violence for their involvement in the two hoaxes.
We're not talking about kids changing the signs on the bathrooms (although even that is vandalism).
I'm predisposed to agree with you, but the study summary says that it controlled for "other putative risk factors for violence", and that they didn't just use self-reports but also criminal records (and yes, I know that criminal records are also biased).
I'm not paying $6 to pass the paywall to get more clarity on their controls though. You could be right but I'm not convinced you are.
You need to double check the definition of 'scientific evidence'. It doesn't mean: 'Things I agree with.'
It honestly sounds like you are calling this evidence unscientific because it isn't in the set of "Things I agree with".
Here's a possible out, though: just because a valid scientific study does find a correlation, doesn't mean that a correlation is there today. Maybe this 50-year study contains a 15-year stretch where there was some strong correlation (made-up example: violent cults that incorporate marijuana use in their nonviolent rituals), but that correlating factor no longer exists. A 50 year study like this one would capture that correlation but modern studies are unlikely to detect the causation. This said I just made that up as an example.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Gabe Newell prefers money to stunts. Steam is still profiting in Australia.
To my understanding, Steam was simply breaking a clear and not at all obscure law, due to a failure of due diligence.
Anybody claiming that the 2nd Amendment isn't confusingly worded has an agenda.
Who are you kidding? Nobody talks like this: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". You'd fail in English class.
It turns out that the following words also don't mean the same things today as they did when written:
regulated
Militia
security
State
people
"bear arms"
infringed
Every one of those needs to be defined.
You guys are missing the obvious: all the parents are alive, some of them share parents.
If everything is automated, then we don't need to work to supply all our needs and wants.
If all of our needs and wants are not being supplied by these automated systems, then there's still a job to do which (per the premise) was not automated.
One obvious way is if it blows the warm air across the A/C's heat sensor, triggering it to do the actual cooling.
Another is if it pushes the heat toward areas of weaker insulation and away from areas of stronger insulation. If the outside is cooler than the inside, then the temperature will leak out more rapidly. If the outside is warmer than the inside, then the warmth will leak in more slowly.
Another is if you're in building and where a vaulted ceiling fan is pushing floor 2 heat down to floor 1. My last house was like that, and I kept the fan on constantly because the floor-by-floor difference was enormous.
Another is if the temperature was not evenly distributed within the room's bottom (eg. because one wall is an exterior wall, or one shares a wall with the kitchen, or there are electrically powered devices in there acting as heat sources). Redistributing will directly cool those parts at the expense of parts further away.
The context is KDE. The D in KDE stands for Desktop.
Talking about things that are mostly not desktop is the strawman.
They did. They linked maps of them in the subject.
By contrast, you haven't shown even one locale (given that you haven't identified where "here" is).
If a road gets congested, then travelling on it gets slower, it doesn't ban new cars from entering the roadway. However the road might open up carpool lanes, which effectively prioritize those people who are taking actions to reduce road congestion...
Use of a shared resource will always, always, always be subject to prioritization. That's inherent. The people using more than 26GB are already the ones who are getting the best deal out of everyone before the throttling.
(this said, I'm switching to the cheaper $50 / month plan with limited data on T-Mobile the second my AT&T contract expires, which should be before those are discontinued).
4k streaming is a thing these days. Netflix recommends 25Mbps. I imagine the majority of people don't have more than 1 4k TV today (though a significant minority will), but a 4k stream + some HD streams for other TV / browser use + miscellaneous use simultaneously isn't unreasonable. That means 50 is about the right capacity.
It contradicts exactly what you said
This story is not about people leaving. It's about them not getting as many NEW customers as they thought.
But they say:
Gross additions were on target, but churn ticked up slightly and unexpectedly.
That's literally the opposite of what you said. They are getting as many new customers as they thought, but people are leaving.
Although nobody is talking about building enclosures to attract lightning to your bathroom...
There is a degree to which rabies in humans is rare because people are afraid of it. And fatal shark attacks are rare because humans don't like to swim where the dangerous shark varieties are. Etc..
That doesn't mean this isn't a good idea -- mosquitoes are a disease reservoir that is typically much more infectious, and choosing bats because they suppress mosquito populations* seems likely to be a good choice. It's just an explanation for why people don't love bats. I didn't care about bats much but my parents would tell me to avoid them due to the rabies risk.
* This of course assumes it's true. I've read that there's little evidence that bats eat enough mosquitoes to make up for the fake that they eat the things that already eat mosquitoes.
$480000 sounds like a fairly reasonable payout in this case, and it sounds like you aren't entirely opposed to that (or at least the amount of her huge medical bills, whatever it is), so I don't think we necessarily disagree (except others have covered serving vs. brewing temperatures). I have a bone to pick with this argument:
Those 700 incidents were over a period of something like 13 years when McDonalds sold billions of cups of coffee. I number crunched the statistics once. If you lived 5 miles from McDonalds and drove there to buy a cup of coffee and took it home, you were more likely to die in a traffic accident than to scald yourself by spilling their coffee. If their coffee was too dangerous for the public, then so is every car on the road.
That's a pretty nonsensical argument. If I had to swim through shark-infested waters to an island to go rock climbing, then the risk of me dying from a shark attack would exceed the risk of me dying from a rock climbing accident.
Yes, cars are dangerous, and that's why their use is carefully licensed and car manufacture, sale, and driving is one of the most regulated industries. It's an irrelevant benchmark because driving cars is not drinking coffee, and even if it were relevant it makes for a very poor benchmark in your case a lot of things can be safer than cars and regulated less than cars and still regulated a lot more than coffee.
In this case, the problem wasn't even that McDonald's served the coffee this hot, it's that it served it this hot with no warning.
What's missing is that indications of life might not be strong indications of intelligent life. Depending on the ratio of worlds with life but no intelligence to worlds with intelligent life, and the mean time for intelligent life to develop on a no-intelligent-life world.
I don't see how that law applies. Microsoft didn't charge more than the list price of $0. Therefore it violated none of those laws.
At no point in that law do I see anything requiring the company to sell a product for its listed price, only requiring that it not charge more than its listed price.
All three of the things you mentioned are completely missing the point.
It's irrational to expect a dedicated 100% capacity-reserved line for every customer. It makes no economic sense. It's like expecting a dedicated lane in every highway just for you. That has nothing to do with net neutrality or ISPs sharing your Wifi.
You want to debate about Comcast's advertising, that's a different thing and you can have at it.
Well, your point 1 is misleading, and the rest of the points are a different topic entirely.
As for other industries that operate on this model, here's some off the top of my head:
Telephone
Banks
Public roads
Private roads
Restaurant buffet
Insurance
Lottery
Obviously Microsoft knows what's best for us, regardless of what we want.
In this case, literally yes, they do.
Maybe I *want* to use a weak password
And maybe you want to jump into the swimming pool wearing full platemail armour but the lifeguard doesn't have to let you, and in fact should not let you.
what business is it of theirs to tell me I can't?
It's literally their business.
I buy it on Amazon because, even though I do have time to go to the store and pick it up, why would I do that when I could just buy it on Amazon?
I do agree with you that I'm not likely to price-watch the small stuff -- that's not new to Amazon though. A price adjustment on a big-ticket item has never come up for me.
You didn't read the article.
The difference is that when men don't like shows that are aimed at women, they apparently rate the show, but when women don't like shows that are aimed at men, they don't rate the show. There are shows popular with men and unpopular with women, and vice-versa, and the latter get way more "wrong-gender" votes. No particular reason was proposed as to why this is. The call to action was to recognize that single-number rating systems obscure important details in general.
What? How are torture and war alternatives to one another?
He literally told him to go talk to a primary source, not to take his own word for it.
Perfect. You nailed it.
What an unbelievably stupid point.
And you are conveniently ignoring the whole point that if you ban something that makes someone "uncomfortable", you have to ban EVERYTHING.
Murder makes me uncomfortable. If you ban it, you must therefore ban EVERYTHING, including breathing.
I think you hate that he used the word uncomfortable. I'm really tempted to say you were triggered because I bet that word triggers you too. Oops! I guess I just did.
If a law was broken, that's one thing, but otherwise, absolutely not.
A law was broken. You can't call in a bomb hoax. You can't threaten people's lives and (with exceptions) property.
All four pleaded guilty to two counts of using threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear of, or provoke unlawful violence for their involvement in the two hoaxes.
We're not talking about kids changing the signs on the bathrooms (although even that is vandalism).
It's not a formal proof. I think the rest of it is essentially instinctual. But fine.
If x is divisible by y, then mx is also divisible by y, for all integers x, y, and m.
10^x = 10^y * 10^z when x = y + z.
Therefore, if 10^n is evenly divisible by 2^n, it follows that 10^m is evenly divisible by 2^n for all integers m > n.
I'm predisposed to agree with you, but the study summary says that it controlled for "other putative risk factors for violence", and that they didn't just use self-reports but also criminal records (and yes, I know that criminal records are also biased).
I'm not paying $6 to pass the paywall to get more clarity on their controls though. You could be right but I'm not convinced you are.
You need to double check the definition of 'scientific evidence'. It doesn't mean: 'Things I agree with.'
It honestly sounds like you are calling this evidence unscientific because it isn't in the set of "Things I agree with".
Here's a possible out, though: just because a valid scientific study does find a correlation, doesn't mean that a correlation is there today. Maybe this 50-year study contains a 15-year stretch where there was some strong correlation (made-up example: violent cults that incorporate marijuana use in their nonviolent rituals), but that correlating factor no longer exists. A 50 year study like this one would capture that correlation but modern studies are unlikely to detect the causation. This said I just made that up as an example.