Because we don't have the time and inclination to create our own Linux distros
In other words "I want you to do all the work for me, and I'm just going to sit over here and post complaints on Slashdot and Reddit if you do it the way you like it rather than the way I like it."
Until you can magically vacuum energy out of the air, you're going to have to deal with dead batteries in headsets and your headset dying and needing a recharge when you need it the most.
Yeah there was a lesson there for all of us to pay attention to. Before SMS people mainly thought "why would you bother writing a message when you can just call?". People didn't forsee all the situations in which it is more discreet and convenient to text. I expect we'll have other such surprises in future. This Facebook executive is going to be surprised a lot because her predictions don't even acknowledge the recent past. I guess it's the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
And speech-to-text keyboards on Android and iOS means you can speak your text message, have it translated and sent as text for those who don't want to type.
I see no reason why polluting industries like (oil/gas companies) should be subsidized at all. Frankly, we should be taxing them based on how much pollution they emit and how damaging it is. We are eventually going to have to remove CO2 from the air and it's going to be a pricey project. We might as well start saving money for it now.
Removing CO2 from air would kill all plant life.
This makes as much sense sense as "gay people are evil because people need to have babies because our species will die off without them." In other words, we're in absolutely no danger of making such strong reductions that we swing that far.
It's intentionally insulting. Yeah, it's not majorly insulting, just something to make the eyes roll a bit at his immaturity. He wouldn't have used it if he wasn't trying to be insulting. That's the entire point.
1998 was an exceptionally warm El Nino year, which brought up temperatures in late 1997 and 1998, and once the El Nino subsided, temperatures trended back more closely with 1996-1997 levels. The ocean is a massive heat-sink and has been absorbing much of the additional heat generated, and the El Nino's altered currents bring some of that heat back to the surface during those years.
The "scientists" are looking at ~120 years of data and make predictions reaching thousands of years into the future. Something tells me those "scientists" are really snake oil salesman looking for grants who have as much credibility as those "scientists" doumenting water canals on mars in the 19th century.
Yeah, and all those evil scientists at the pharmaceutical industries have discovered cures to cancer but are keeping them secret because they want to sell expensive treatments instead. The problem about secrets like that -- keeping them secret gets harder and harder the more people have to be involved in keeping it.
there hasn't been any warming for a little over 18 years now.
That's been debunked over and over again. Why does it keep getting reposted? Why do you actually believe this? You can't cherry-pick a single unusually hot year, claim it's the average, then say temperatures are still hovering around average. That's not how statistics work.
Translation: I pretend to be aloof and objective, but will surely find a way to insult the speaker.
Did the grandparent have anything insightful to say? If someone responds with OMG manbearpig, it's pretty clear they have little interest in making an insightful argument.
why pay for HBO movies when they'll soon be on Netflix?
Because usually they're not. I love my Netflix, but the content companies have been fighting a cold war with them, starving them for content. If I only had Netflix streaming, I'd cancel the subscription in a heartbeat. It's not worth much.
Let's not forget other stupid things, like boxes that insist upon doing HDCP re-negotiation every goddamn time you change the channel and add a minimum of 3-5 seconds to the time it takes
Don't they have to? If the resolution changes (and it usually does), would the old HDCP negotiation be invalid?
But there's one case where poor people are more criminal -- substance abuse. Some rich folks can manage to live their lives while being a total addict, but for most people, an uncontrollable drug addition is a nice downward spiral into poverty. If you get fired from your job and can't get another due to addiction, you'll quickly find yourself in poverty. And as long as the addiction drains whatever funds you receive, you're not getting out.
the person filing the "deductions" is essentially spending government funds
That argument only works if you consider all money to be the government's by default, of which they generously allow a portion for individuals to have.
It was meant to illustrate how we incorrectly assign the poor as being more criminal, and how the social safety cost far less than the low capital gains tax.
You know, most of the homeless out on the streets aren't there because they're just good, decent people who are down on a little luck. I'm all in for giving those who are a hand up. That's where government benefits should go.
But many of them them are there because of their personal choices regarding drugs and alcohol. More still have other mental impairments. I live in an area where chronically homeless get coddled, and the problem is worse than ever. They don't improve. They camp out on the street and strew their trash around. Benefits don't help. Cash just goes to There are some people who cannot, or absolutely will refuse not to live in normal society. And it doesn't help the number of people around here who think homelessness is as valid a lifestyle choice as any other.
You know who cares about Trump's hair? Comedians do. It's great fun and even Trump's supporters laugh. Hillary's pant suits aren't funny. Nothing about her is even slightly amusing.
I don't know, I like Kate McKinnon's impressions of Hillary as a woman one comment away from a total breakdown.
It does say something about his judgement that he wears that thing in public and thinks it looks OK. I mean, there are expensive rugs that look really good and you can't tell.
I really miss the Shatner Turbo 2000. There are many pictures available at the William Shatner School of Toupological Studies (found at shatnerstoupee.blogspot.com), and on rare occasions they will convene a full sitting of their Grand Toupular Assembly (GTA) to analyze a particular hairpiece, but my favorite was his Wrath of Khan hairpiece. Magnificent.
the problem I have is that a very rich person basically paid lawyers to find problems
You know, it's not like they had to try very hard. Gawker reps publicly stated they don't have to follow court orders. This wasn't something super-secretive that someone had to dig up.
and subsequently destroy a media entity that he didn't like
Gawker destroyed themselves. They were really really fucking idiotic.
Nobody who depends on the monopoly power of patents, copyrights, etc. can reasonably claim to be a libertarian.
Under what definition of libertarianism, though? The Constitution clearly gives the power to create and enforce copyright law to Congress. Or could this be a more Anti-Federalist libertarian ideal of "the Constitution itself as it was written gives the federal government too much power, so it should be amended to fix that?"
I think he would actually be more happy by changing campaign finance laws. The Citizens United ruling was clearly and obviously one of the most devastating ruling to ever come out of the Supreme Court. The unlimited money since then has contributed to polarization and legalized bribery throughout the government.
I can't disagree with that, but I have to think that Citizen's United is the ruling that most closely hews to the Constitution. If it costs a shit-ton of money to spread your message nationwide, then limiting money is limiting speech.
No, what matters is that a Silicon Valley 'Libertarian' is using the full power of the State to shut up his critics.
Liberatarians are not Anarchists. The Gawker lawsuits are fully within Libertarian ideals which is that IP law is one of the very, very few areas that the government has involved itself in, that the government actually has legitimate purview over.
Slashdot Mirror
That's another aspect of "civilized" societies - you can't just pick-and-choose which rules to break.
We do that all the time. The Second Amendment is just about the only part of the Constitution that is rigorously defended.
Because we don't have the time and inclination to create our own Linux distros
In other words "I want you to do all the work for me, and I'm just going to sit over here and post complaints on Slashdot and Reddit if you do it the way you like it rather than the way I like it."
Bluetooth and other wireless headsets suck.
Until you can magically vacuum energy out of the air, you're going to have to deal with dead batteries in headsets and your headset dying and needing a recharge when you need it the most.
Yeah there was a lesson there for all of us to pay attention to. Before SMS people mainly thought "why would you bother writing a message when you can just call?". People didn't forsee all the situations in which it is more discreet and convenient to text. I expect we'll have other such surprises in future. This Facebook executive is going to be surprised a lot because her predictions don't even acknowledge the recent past. I guess it's the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
And speech-to-text keyboards on Android and iOS means you can speak your text message, have it translated and sent as text for those who don't want to type.
I see no reason why polluting industries like (oil/gas companies) should be subsidized at all. Frankly, we should be taxing them based on how much pollution they emit and how damaging it is. We are eventually going to have to remove CO2 from the air and it's going to be a pricey project. We might as well start saving money for it now.
Removing CO2 from air would kill all plant life.
This makes as much sense sense as "gay people are evil because people need to have babies because our species will die off without them."
In other words, we're in absolutely no danger of making such strong reductions that we swing that far.
It's intentionally insulting. Yeah, it's not majorly insulting, just something to make the eyes roll a bit at his immaturity. He wouldn't have used it if he wasn't trying to be insulting. That's the entire point.
Is the NOAA good enough? Why Did Earth's Surface Temperature Stop Rising in the Past Decade?
1998 was an exceptionally warm El Nino year, which brought up temperatures in late 1997 and 1998, and once the El Nino subsided, temperatures trended back more closely with 1996-1997 levels. The ocean is a massive heat-sink and has been absorbing much of the additional heat generated, and the El Nino's altered currents bring some of that heat back to the surface during those years.
Obvious troll is a little too obvious at this point.
The good trolls know that a little subtlety can go a long way.
The "scientists" are looking at ~120 years of data and make predictions reaching thousands of years into the future. Something tells me those "scientists" are really snake oil salesman looking for grants who have as much credibility as those "scientists" doumenting water canals on mars in the 19th century.
Yeah, and all those evil scientists at the pharmaceutical industries have discovered cures to cancer but are keeping them secret because they want to sell expensive treatments instead.
The problem about secrets like that -- keeping them secret gets harder and harder the more people have to be involved in keeping it.
there hasn't been any warming for a little over 18 years now.
That's been debunked over and over again. Why does it keep getting reposted? Why do you actually believe this?
You can't cherry-pick a single unusually hot year, claim it's the average, then say temperatures are still hovering around average. That's not how statistics work.
Cause the Clinton years were just sooo bad.
Bill Clinton was thwarted by a Republican congress. He wanted to tax, borrow and spend as much as any other Democrat.
-jcr
And Hillary Clinton will likely be in the same situation. I'm sure what the downside is yet.
Translation: I pretend to be aloof and objective, but will surely find a way to insult the speaker.
Did the grandparent have anything insightful to say? If someone responds with OMG manbearpig, it's pretty clear they have little interest in making an insightful argument.
why pay for HBO movies when they'll soon be on Netflix?
Because usually they're not.
I love my Netflix, but the content companies have been fighting a cold war with them, starving them for content. If I only had Netflix streaming, I'd cancel the subscription in a heartbeat. It's not worth much.
Let's not forget other stupid things, like boxes that insist upon doing HDCP re-negotiation every goddamn time you change the channel and add a minimum of 3-5 seconds to the time it takes
Don't they have to? If the resolution changes (and it usually does), would the old HDCP negotiation be invalid?
I'm not sure that's actually correct
I think the GP was trolling.
But there's one case where poor people are more criminal -- substance abuse. Some rich folks can manage to live their lives while being a total addict, but for most people, an uncontrollable drug addition is a nice downward spiral into poverty. If you get fired from your job and can't get another due to addiction, you'll quickly find yourself in poverty. And as long as the addiction drains whatever funds you receive, you're not getting out.
the person filing the "deductions" is essentially spending government funds
That argument only works if you consider all money to be the government's by default, of which they generously allow a portion for individuals to have.
It was meant to illustrate how we incorrectly assign the poor as being more criminal, and how the social safety cost far less than the low capital gains tax.
You know, most of the homeless out on the streets aren't there because they're just good, decent people who are down on a little luck. I'm all in for giving those who are a hand up. That's where government benefits should go.
But many of them them are there because of their personal choices regarding drugs and alcohol. More still have other mental impairments.
I live in an area where chronically homeless get coddled, and the problem is worse than ever. They don't improve. They camp out on the street and strew their trash around. Benefits don't help. Cash just goes to There are some people who cannot, or absolutely will refuse not to live in normal society. And it doesn't help the number of people around here who think homelessness is as valid a lifestyle choice as any other.
You know who cares about Trump's hair? Comedians do. It's great fun and even Trump's supporters laugh. Hillary's pant suits aren't funny. Nothing about her is even slightly amusing.
I don't know, I like Kate McKinnon's impressions of Hillary as a woman one comment away from a total breakdown.
It does say something about his judgement that he wears that thing in public and thinks it looks OK. I mean, there are expensive rugs that look really good and you can't tell.
I really miss the Shatner Turbo 2000. There are many pictures available at the William Shatner School of Toupological Studies (found at shatnerstoupee.blogspot.com), and on rare occasions they will convene a full sitting of their Grand Toupular Assembly (GTA) to analyze a particular hairpiece, but my favorite was his Wrath of Khan hairpiece. Magnificent.
the problem I have is that a very rich person basically paid lawyers to find problems
You know, it's not like they had to try very hard. Gawker reps publicly stated they don't have to follow court orders. This wasn't something super-secretive that someone had to dig up.
and subsequently destroy a media entity that he didn't like
Gawker destroyed themselves. They were really really fucking idiotic.
Nobody who depends on the monopoly power of patents, copyrights, etc. can reasonably claim to be a libertarian.
Under what definition of libertarianism, though? The Constitution clearly gives the power to create and enforce copyright law to Congress. Or could this be a more Anti-Federalist libertarian ideal of "the Constitution itself as it was written gives the federal government too much power, so it should be amended to fix that?"
I think he would actually be more happy by changing campaign finance laws. The Citizens United ruling was clearly and obviously one of the most devastating ruling to ever come out of the Supreme Court. The unlimited money since then has contributed to polarization and legalized bribery throughout the government.
I can't disagree with that, but I have to think that Citizen's United is the ruling that most closely hews to the Constitution. If it costs a shit-ton of money to spread your message nationwide, then limiting money is limiting speech.
No, what matters is that a Silicon Valley 'Libertarian' is using the full power of the State to shut up his critics.
Liberatarians are not Anarchists. The Gawker lawsuits are fully within Libertarian ideals which is that IP law is one of the very, very few areas that the government has involved itself in, that the government actually has legitimate purview over.
Unfortunately, the modder used the coward's way out -- "overrated", not Redundant.
I suppose I asked for that. :-D
Unfortunately, the modder used the coward's way out -- "overrated", not Redundant.