Their contention that do-it yourself repairmen are better for the environment it is completely unsupported. iFixit does not recover the broken parts that their clients are replacing and old parts are typically tossed in the trash. Manufacturer repair shops like Apple's have recycling policies that do recycle broken parts as well as old devices that people turn in when upgrading.
You believe this? No, seriously, you think this crap actually gets recycled, and disposed of in an environmentally-friendly way?
Bull. Shit. It gets shipped overseas to "recycling partners" at which point Apple and Co can wipe their hands clean and say they did their part. But where does it actually go? To Africa, where children burn cables and other electronics in fires to try and smelt off the metal. Or it just goes to China, where it's buried in a landfill. Apple and others
You really think that broken IC can actually be recycled? You think that circuit board has components that will be disposed of in a cheap, yet recycling-conscious manner?
Absolutely not. The three Rs in order of decreasing importance: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Reducing how much you use will almost always be a bigger win over recycling.
Don't you blaspheme Jedism. Oh, you didn't realize that apostrophe misuse is one of the core tenets of the religion?
Yeah, I'm not sure why either. Probably because Lucas had no idea how to use the possessive when he wrote the script to Star Wars, and that trend has been passed from that holy document to its adherents.
Ah. So it comes down some random decision that Jediism is "not offensive" and the Christianity is "offensive". There goes the atheist meme that those 2 beliefs should be treated the same I guess.
I suppose one difference is that Jedism and Pastafarianism are widely acknowledged as parodies. As much as adherents try to keep a straight face while snickering, no one, including said adherents, believe those religions are real. While there might be some among Christianity, Islam, whatever who don't believe in those religions, most in the religions actually believe there is a God and that the Bible/Koran/etc are true.
Meanwhile, Scientology falls somewhere in the middle. Started as a scam, almost certainly believed to be a scam by the higher-ups, while many on the low rungs, at least in the early few years, probably believe it's real.
I'm not sure if that really has anything to do with the theater decision. They'll know Jedism is a joke, but if it came to Christianity, someone might likely think that a number of folks actually care about this one way or the other.
Maybe, but currently Turkey is claiming this was far more than a short-term border violation, but that it was actively bombing targets in Eastern Turkey.
citation please? everything I have read, including the Turkish statements all say it was an incursion of just a few seconds where they crossed piece of Turkish land that protrudes into Syria, the jet was then shot down while it was in Syria, i.e. the jets were not even heading into turkey let alone on an active bombing run on turkey.
Hmmm, I can't find any references to it now.
Maybe this is one of those CNNisms where they report some rumor, then quietly try to hide the evidence when there's nothing to substantiate it.
Actually, in terms of the GDP, we really did not. Russia outspent America by a LONG margin
I think that supports the point -- the Russians needed to match absolute dollars spent to maintain parity, not a percentage of the GDP. The US outspent the USSR in real dollars, so the Russians had to spend a much higher percentage of their GDP to keep up. The US could afford it, the USSR could not before it all came tumbling down.
Maybe, but currently Turkey is claiming this was far more than a short-term border violation, but that it was actively bombing targets in Eastern Turkey.
If they're rebelling against Assad, they're probably allied with (if not openly supporting) ISIL. It may have been different early on in the war, but not anymore.
Or they might just be super-pissed off that their parents or their sons or someone was in one of the villages that Assad gassed and exterminated.
For the record, I do think ISIS will get squashed or fade out, but the longer that something like that festers, the longer it has to influence Muslims around the world to radicalize.
I'm sure the royalty in Europe thought something similar about insignificant "democracy" being declared in north america
Well, democracy wasn't necessarily "allowed to fester" in the US. France wasn't interested in Democracy in their borders, but they sure were willing to weaken Britain, so they gave their active support. India rebelled as well, and the American War for Independence became one of the first "World Wars," involving the fledgling US, Canada (British colony, though the US and Quebec had an agreement to allow Quebec in as an American state after the war) , Britain, India, France, the Netherlands, the British East India Company, the French-backed Kingdom of Mysore, and Spain. The American Revolutionary War was a spark that let the various powers that be take advantage of each others' weaknesses. I suppose there are parallels somewhere with Turkey/the Kurds/ISIS/Syria.
ISIS was created by two "mission accomplished" screwups. First, the unseating of Hussein after Bush thought the mission was accomplished in Afghanistan, and second, Obama's pullout of Iraq under the assumption that the Iraqi people were capable of properly self-governing or that the Iraqi government was strong or fair enough to do so.
Yes, Libya is not a peaceful democratic paradise now, but at least its problems are now mostly its problems and not ours.
I'm not sure about that. Khadaffi was, uhh... not exactly a friend, but I think our history in the Middle East is leading to a conclusion that the countries there need strong-man leader to keep the crazies in check. We go in, create a power vacuum, and that vacuum is replaced with something far more horrible (the Islamic State at the moment).
The U.S. bases in Japan are there because the peace treaty ending WWII says Japan cannot have an external military, and instead the U.S. will provide for its national defense. Frankly I think it's time to revise those treaties and have Japan pay for its own defense (which would drive China nuts), but until that's done the U.S. bases in Japan have to stay.
Every time a plan is proposed to re-arm and amend the Constitution for a force that could be used outside of Japan, it meets considerable popular opposition.
The only reason we got away with it in Japan and Germany was because both countries were completely and utterly destroyed. The remaining leaders could take the carrot and play ball, resign, or refuse to play ball and be forcibly removed and/or accused of war crimes. There was not much choice.
They also have much different cultural norms than almost any country in the Middle East. Japan had a long tradition of being very authoritarian. When the Allied Powers became the authority in Japan, that went fairly smoothly. Germany as well, and it helps that most Germans were stunned and ashamed by what the Nazis did.
In the Middle East, the Islamic State rules because so many of them legitimately believe that there is no higher authority than the Koran. An Allied Powers sort of force that conquered society (you have to do more than topple a government) would be seen as an outside, un-Islamic occupier. For generations. Those occupiers would be treated the same way Israel is -- outsiders attacking their religion.
The Saudis can't keep it up forever. In the mean time my wallet appreciates the current prices.
The Saudis are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The last time they raised the prices of oil after they had fallen like this, others didn't raise their prices and the Saudis lost a lot of countries as customers. When OPEC was the major fossil fuel power and they were all united behind OPEC, they could raise prices, and everyone else had to take it. That's not really the case anymore.
That oil narrative again. You are the naive one here; we buy oil from IS already, and at discount price because it's black market.
Probably need a source for that.
They don't want our 'help', most Muslim support Sharia law (a Islamic duty according to the Quran) and therefore the Islamic State.
The Salafysts support that, but most Muslims do not. As a result, the Islamic State reserves the most zeal and the harshest punishments for those they consider "lapsed Muslims."
Here is what the future hold for you: We will solve this crisis 'peacefully' by recognising the Islamic state as legitimate, just like we did with all the other asshole theocratic state of the region (Israel, Iran, Iraq, etc). We will then deport all the Muslim fanatic to there new paradise state. And the war against the barbaric Islam will be postponed for a other century.
I'm not sure if you can recognize "the Islamic State." They certainly wouldn't accept the idea, since, following the strictest reading of the Koran, man-made law is blasphemy, and therefore, country borders are blasphemy as well. They didn't like the title of "ISIS" (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) because they don't recognize the legitimacy of an "Iraq" or a "Syria." They recognize only a Caliphate, a leader whose proclamations are based only on a strict reading of Muhammad's texts. They won't recognize the legitimacy of a President Obama, or President Trump, or President Clinton or President Rubio or anyone else. Since making peace with the "enemies of Islam" is also blasphemy, they will not grant so much as a cease fire for any reason to the people they would consider un-Islamic.
I'd have agreed with you a few years ago. Yes, you can stop nearly all web-based attacks by blocking scripting, but you do so at the expense of blocking nearly all web functionality. These days, too much of the web is just utterly broken without scripting enabled. I was tired of constantly fiddling with it, trying to find the content delivery network to allow so the site would actually work.
I could imagine one of the biggest time-sinks would be determining if the ad-blocker/javascript-blocker is effing up the site, or if the site is legitimately broken. I don't use any sort of ad-blocker or javascript filters, and I see so many major sites out there with bad scripting that I wouldn't ever be able to tell if I was blocking something important.
Please note that Yahoo's email services are located in the United States, and are subject to US law only. Now Yahoo might operate other country-specific services that are bound by the laws of those countries. yahoo.co.uk for instance would fall specifically under UK law, including various IP laws that hold in Britain.
I'm amused by these various stories though. How do people think these companies are going to make money? Those web mail services cost money to operate. Where is the money supposed to come from? If they're giving you something, they're going to need something in return.
Though I suppose reading a bit more carefully, we might both agree that using an actual email client to connect to the POP/IMAP ports that many webmail providers offer is a decent compromise.
The major one is you lose all your emails when your webmail provider shuts down.
I doubt that gmail is shutting down any time soon. But even if I lost them, I pretty much don't care about them very much. I don't use my mailbox as a permanent archive anymore, as any service provider, any at all, is inherently untrustworthy. The only things really tied to that are that it's an address I use when registering services. I suppose it could be a minor inconvenience to register a different address with them.
But email addresses are transitory unless you own and operate your own domain, far more effect for little reward than most people like me are willing to go through. Without that, your options are either a web mail provider who -might- disappear some day, or an ISP who might terminate your account forever on the first missed payment (which also happened to me after I filed a billing dispute with AT&T..)
I make it a personal policy to allow for image ads, but flash and html5 video ads get automatically blocked. That is BS no one should have to put up with.
So ad providers, if you'd like me to see your ads: don't make them videos. Don't make them heavy. Ad providers and website hosters: if you don't want your customers to get twitchy and want to block ads, make sure the servers are fast enough to serve them immediately, and don't resize/redraw web pages when the ads finally load. I feel like ragequitting a tiny bit every time I try to click on a link and suddenly an ad appears and shifts up/down the page and I end up clicking something else instead.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't you both be right?
It makes for racks of drives very easy to move from one side of a data center to the other.
Their contention that do-it yourself repairmen are better for the environment it is completely unsupported. iFixit does not recover the broken parts that their clients are replacing and old parts are typically tossed in the trash. Manufacturer repair shops like Apple's have recycling policies that do recycle broken parts as well as old devices that people turn in when upgrading.
You believe this? No, seriously, you think this crap actually gets recycled, and disposed of in an environmentally-friendly way?
Bull. Shit. It gets shipped overseas to "recycling partners" at which point Apple and Co can wipe their hands clean and say they did their part. But where does it actually go? To Africa, where children burn cables and other electronics in fires to try and smelt off the metal. Or it just goes to China, where it's buried in a landfill. Apple and others
You really think that broken IC can actually be recycled? You think that circuit board has components that will be disposed of in a cheap, yet recycling-conscious manner?
Absolutely not. The three Rs in order of decreasing importance: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Reducing how much you use will almost always be a bigger win over recycling.
Don't you blaspheme Jedism.
Oh, you didn't realize that apostrophe misuse is one of the core tenets of the religion?
Yeah, I'm not sure why either. Probably because Lucas had no idea how to use the possessive when he wrote the script to Star Wars, and that trend has been passed from that holy document to its adherents.
Ah. So it comes down some random decision that Jediism is "not offensive" and the Christianity is "offensive". There goes the atheist meme that those 2 beliefs should be treated the same I guess.
I suppose one difference is that Jedism and Pastafarianism are widely acknowledged as parodies. As much as adherents try to keep a straight face while snickering, no one, including said adherents, believe those religions are real. While there might be some among Christianity, Islam, whatever who don't believe in those religions, most in the religions actually believe there is a God and that the Bible/Koran/etc are true.
Meanwhile, Scientology falls somewhere in the middle. Started as a scam, almost certainly believed to be a scam by the higher-ups, while many on the low rungs, at least in the early few years, probably believe it's real.
I'm not sure if that really has anything to do with the theater decision. They'll know Jedism is a joke, but if it came to Christianity, someone might likely think that a number of folks actually care about this one way or the other.
The problem is that people who aren't at -1 reply to the -1 posts.
Maybe, but currently Turkey is claiming this was far more than a short-term border violation, but that it was actively bombing targets in Eastern Turkey.
citation please? everything I have read, including the Turkish statements all say it was an incursion of just a few seconds where they crossed piece of Turkish land that protrudes into Syria, the jet was then shot down while it was in Syria, i.e. the jets were not even heading into turkey let alone on an active bombing run on turkey.
Hmmm, I can't find any references to it now.
Maybe this is one of those CNNisms where they report some rumor, then quietly try to hide the evidence when there's nothing to substantiate it.
Actually, in terms of the GDP, we really did not. Russia outspent America by a LONG margin
I think that supports the point -- the Russians needed to match absolute dollars spent to maintain parity, not a percentage of the GDP. The US outspent the USSR in real dollars, so the Russians had to spend a much higher percentage of their GDP to keep up. The US could afford it, the USSR could not before it all came tumbling down.
Maybe, but currently Turkey is claiming this was far more than a short-term border violation, but that it was actively bombing targets in Eastern Turkey.
If they're rebelling against Assad, they're probably allied with (if not openly supporting) ISIL. It may have been different early on in the war, but not anymore.
Or they might just be super-pissed off that their parents or their sons or someone was in one of the villages that Assad gassed and exterminated.
For the record, I do think ISIS will get squashed or fade out, but the longer that something like that festers, the longer it has to influence Muslims around the world to radicalize.
I'm sure the royalty in Europe thought something similar about insignificant "democracy" being declared in north america
Well, democracy wasn't necessarily "allowed to fester" in the US. France wasn't interested in Democracy in their borders, but they sure were willing to weaken Britain, so they gave their active support. India rebelled as well, and the American War for Independence became one of the first "World Wars," involving the fledgling US, Canada (British colony, though the US and Quebec had an agreement to allow Quebec in as an American state after the war) , Britain, India, France, the Netherlands, the British East India Company, the French-backed Kingdom of Mysore, and Spain. The American Revolutionary War was a spark that let the various powers that be take advantage of each others' weaknesses. I suppose there are parallels somewhere with Turkey/the Kurds/ISIS/Syria.
Read it again. I was the one using the blinker. I also happen to be the only person in the state of Georgia that uses one.
Right, but my point was, how would a Texan even know what that flashing light meant?
Maybe they thought it was the hazard blinkers. "Poor fellow, something must be wrong, just let him through."
ISIS was created by two "mission accomplished" screwups. First, the unseating of Hussein after Bush thought the mission was accomplished in Afghanistan, and second, Obama's pullout of Iraq under the assumption that the Iraqi people were capable of properly self-governing or that the Iraqi government was strong or fair enough to do so.
Yes, Libya is not a peaceful democratic paradise now, but at least its problems are now mostly its problems and not ours.
I'm not sure about that. Khadaffi was, uhh... not exactly a friend, but I think our history in the Middle East is leading to a conclusion that the countries there need strong-man leader to keep the crazies in check. We go in, create a power vacuum, and that vacuum is replaced with something far more horrible (the Islamic State at the moment).
The U.S. bases in Japan are there because the peace treaty ending WWII says Japan cannot have an external military, and instead the U.S. will provide for its national defense. Frankly I think it's time to revise those treaties and have Japan pay for its own defense (which would drive China nuts), but until that's done the U.S. bases in Japan have to stay.
Japan has had the "Japan Self-Defense Forces" since the mid-50s. They have separate land, air, and sea forces ostensibly for purely self-defense reasons. In 2010, Japan had the 6th-highest military budget in the world.
Every time a plan is proposed to re-arm and amend the Constitution for a force that could be used outside of Japan, it meets considerable popular opposition.
The only reason we got away with it in Japan and Germany was because both countries were completely and utterly destroyed. The remaining leaders could take the carrot and play ball, resign, or refuse to play ball and be forcibly removed and/or accused of war crimes. There was not much choice.
They also have much different cultural norms than almost any country in the Middle East. Japan had a long tradition of being very authoritarian. When the Allied Powers became the authority in Japan, that went fairly smoothly. Germany as well, and it helps that most Germans were stunned and ashamed by what the Nazis did.
In the Middle East, the Islamic State rules because so many of them legitimately believe that there is no higher authority than the Koran. An Allied Powers sort of force that conquered society (you have to do more than topple a government) would be seen as an outside, un-Islamic occupier. For generations. Those occupiers would be treated the same way Israel is -- outsiders attacking their religion.
The US outspent the Russians on the military, not on oil.
The Saudis can't keep it up forever. In the mean time my wallet appreciates the current prices.
The Saudis are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The last time they raised the prices of oil after they had fallen like this, others didn't raise their prices and the Saudis lost a lot of countries as customers. When OPEC was the major fossil fuel power and they were all united behind OPEC, they could raise prices, and everyone else had to take it. That's not really the case anymore.
That oil narrative again. You are the naive one here; we buy oil from IS already, and at discount price because it's black market.
Probably need a source for that.
They don't want our 'help', most Muslim support Sharia law (a Islamic duty according to the Quran) and therefore the Islamic State.
The Salafysts support that, but most Muslims do not. As a result, the Islamic State reserves the most zeal and the harshest punishments for those they consider "lapsed Muslims."
Here is what the future hold for you: We will solve this crisis 'peacefully' by recognising the Islamic state as legitimate, just like we did with all the other asshole theocratic state of the region (Israel, Iran, Iraq, etc). We will then deport all the Muslim fanatic to there new paradise state. And the war against the barbaric Islam will be postponed for a other century.
I'm not sure if you can recognize "the Islamic State." They certainly wouldn't accept the idea, since, following the strictest reading of the Koran, man-made law is blasphemy, and therefore, country borders are blasphemy as well. They didn't like the title of "ISIS" (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) because they don't recognize the legitimacy of an "Iraq" or a "Syria." They recognize only a Caliphate, a leader whose proclamations are based only on a strict reading of Muhammad's texts. They won't recognize the legitimacy of a President Obama, or President Trump, or President Clinton or President Rubio or anyone else. Since making peace with the "enemies of Islam" is also blasphemy, they will not grant so much as a cease fire for any reason to the people they would consider un-Islamic.
If he's anything like me, he's more than capable of typing coherently when he has a cock in his mouth.
I'd have agreed with you a few years ago. Yes, you can stop nearly all web-based attacks by blocking scripting, but you do so at the expense of blocking nearly all web functionality. These days, too much of the web is just utterly broken without scripting enabled. I was tired of constantly fiddling with it, trying to find the content delivery network to allow so the site would actually work.
I could imagine one of the biggest time-sinks would be determining if the ad-blocker/javascript-blocker is effing up the site, or if the site is legitimately broken. I don't use any sort of ad-blocker or javascript filters, and I see so many major sites out there with bad scripting that I wouldn't ever be able to tell if I was blocking something important.
Please note that Yahoo's email services are located in the United States, and are subject to US law only.
Now Yahoo might operate other country-specific services that are bound by the laws of those countries. yahoo.co.uk for instance would fall specifically under UK law, including various IP laws that hold in Britain.
I'm amused by these various stories though. How do people think these companies are going to make money? Those web mail services cost money to operate. Where is the money supposed to come from? If they're giving you something, they're going to need something in return.
Though I suppose reading a bit more carefully, we might both agree that using an actual email client to connect to the POP/IMAP ports that many webmail providers offer is a decent compromise.
The major one is you lose all your emails when your webmail provider shuts down.
I doubt that gmail is shutting down any time soon. But even if I lost them, I pretty much don't care about them very much. I don't use my mailbox as a permanent archive anymore, as any service provider, any at all, is inherently untrustworthy. The only things really tied to that are that it's an address I use when registering services. I suppose it could be a minor inconvenience to register a different address with them.
But email addresses are transitory unless you own and operate your own domain, far more effect for little reward than most people like me are willing to go through. Without that, your options are either a web mail provider who -might- disappear some day, or an ISP who might terminate your account forever on the first missed payment (which also happened to me after I filed a billing dispute with AT&T..)
I make it a personal policy to allow for image ads, but flash and html5 video ads get automatically blocked. That is BS no one should have to put up with.
So ad providers, if you'd like me to see your ads: don't make them videos. Don't make them heavy.
Ad providers and website hosters: if you don't want your customers to get twitchy and want to block ads, make sure the servers are fast enough to serve them immediately, and don't resize/redraw web pages when the ads finally load. I feel like ragequitting a tiny bit every time I try to click on a link and suddenly an ad appears and shifts up/down the page and I end up clicking something else instead.