It makes sense if the customers pay you lots of money before they die. See: Tobacco, the black market for hard drugs (where customers are sometimes intentionally killed as a marketing stunt), miracle cures, fossil fuels.
From the specs, it looks like these two vehicles use solid-state lithium batteries, which are also being put into some other high-end EVs currently in development. Next question.
If you side with Big Telecom, you'll ensure that nobody will ever upset the empires of Big Tech (in return for some shakedown money). If you side with Big Tech, you let them keep that money, and the barriers for entry are left where they are.
Mod parent up! All the apologists pointing out that the mobile homes haven't become more expensive when adjusted for inflation are right, but they're wrong about the root of the problem.
Seems like we're ready for the living arrangements from Ready Player One, perhaps earlier than expected...how long until we need Terrafoam?
When videogames had gambling in them, you never could've paid real money to play, and the trick was mostly about finding the right one-armed bandit. And it wasn't bad - you got to enjoy some chiptunes and you would eventually get a sweet Porygon for your effort.
I do agree with net neutrality, you changed the question. Telecoms should be forced to carry that hate speech (if contained in technically compliant packets) to Twitter. And then Twitter should be free to delete that hate speech from their platform, and ban the user if they wish.
By contemporary American standards, I think being masculine means being a redpilled incel videogame journalism ethics advocate with a tiki torch and at least 6 guns.
Perhaps legislation that exponentially increases the corporate tax rate for every percentage of market share over 50% (or 33% or 25% depending on what you believe the minimum required number of pie slices is for healthy competition). Force them to price themselves upwards until it's economically possible for competition to arise.
Oooh that is very clever! Only problems I can think of are that it could either unfairly harm niche product monopolies, or allow them through a loophole, depending on how you look at it. There are companies which have a monopoly in small niche markets and aren't doing anything abusive. Just off the top of my head, there's only one company in the US (and the Americas, AFAIK) that re-stitches seatbelts in a way that meets original safety standards, for example.
BTW, I nearly managed to ignore your silly trolling in the form of what you see as a parody of discussion around Barack Obama (actually a parody of a right-wing strawman idea of discussion around Obama), but you don't know that I'm white any more than I know that you're black, so without this knowledge, how could my inherently non-racist insult ever become racist? Even if I did know that you are black (highly, highly doubtful BTW), I could call an individual black man an idiot without being racist - (unlike suggesting that an individual black man is secretly an African Muslim with nothing that could potentially hint at such a background other than his race) so try to troll better in the future. You don't want to be an idiot at trolling.
Do I want to force companies to carry messages regardless of whether the company wants to or not? I think we have to define that more carefully before I answer it, that's too broad and vague. Should companies be forced to present speech on their platforms they don't want to? To that, I'd plainly answer "No."
On the other hand, if you asked me if a telecoms company should be forced to carry technically compliant messages regardless of content, source, or destination, to that I'd plainly answer "Yes."
Wow, that's what mainstream conservatives believe?
I can sort of understand how they want more competition to appear out of thin fucking air when the USA is dominated by regional monopolies or duopolies for ISPs who will crush any upstarts with an iron fist. I mean of course it's not realistic or feasible, but it's a nice sentiment.
How it will help big players just flies in the face of all logic and history. The lack of net neutrality, tiered internet, would help big players. This isn't news. We can see examples of this from before net neutrality was enacted, in the present day US on cellular Internet to which neutrality doesn't apply, and in other countries that don't have net neutrality, so seek them out if you like, don't be intellectually lazy or intentionally obtuse.
The idea that it will help censorship by giving the government another weapon against businesses is batshit insane tinfoil hattery. Killing an ISP to censor a message would be like nuking a state to destroy a subversive flyer. If the government were brazen and despotic enough to do such a thing, there are already many ways it could be done.
"Ask a conservative?" More like "Ask a right-wing looney-toon dingbat." At least I hope so.
Pretty much everyone with any interest in the issue is, except ISPs and conservative think tanks. Funny how that works, isn't it? Why aren't more tech companies against net neutrality if repealing it would do more than enrich ISPs and give right-wingers woodies?
I'm tempted to ignore anyone who thinks any remotely modern use of "idiot" is a racist insult (thus helping justify my use of it) and who didn't address the central premise of my post, but I'll play ball anyway.
Generally the people who complain about private censorship want to post hate speech. This is what gets removed from services like Facebook and Twitter. But let's call it something else if you want. I've seen some conservative media euphemize it as "certain other positions."
Run s/hate speech/"certain other positions"/g on my post and tell me how I'm wrong.
Deplorables should be fighting FOR net neutrality. Weev must be an idiot. He's an admitted nazi and wants to push his ideology deeper into the darkest corners of the web.
LOL idiot, you think that if there's no net neutrality, it'll be easier to post hate speech on the web? No, it will be harder, because the tech megacorps (Google, Facebook, Twitter) will get their services zero-rated, while Gab, 8chan, and Stormfront won't be able to afford such things. This issue is not directly tied to censorship. But a lack of net neutrality will make censorship on private platforms far, far more powerful.
If the deplorables care about "free speech" (by which they mean the right to have their hate speech protected from private consequences and censorship, not what "free speech" is defined as in US law) so much, they should be fighting FOR net neutrality tooth and nail!
Conservatism in general is not just a misguided, arguably somewhat reasonable pro-business ideology. It's an ancient evil, dressed in a human skinsuit, dressed in a suit and tie, and even many conservatives are not aware of this. Our foe has thousands of years of experience vs. our <300.
So... is it time for the guillotines yet? When will the public turn on those who are betraying them? When will enough of them even realize they're being betrayed?
I saw an interesting article on this the other day, from a 1%er apologist's perspective, but he raised some interesting facts and perhaps unintentionally made a good argument for something adjacent to his point:
The reason Americans don't revolt can be summed up with a reference to the old dirty joke about "the barrel." Because the USA's economic system gives most people a day outside "the barrel" at some point in their lives, Americans as a group are apparently willing to accept a system where most people spend most or all of their lives "in the barrel." It's pretty fucked up.
Hey now, there are a lot of terrible things you could say about Ajit Pai. You could call him an anti-human money grubbing corporate whore, for example. You could call him the Internet's vile arch-enemy. But let's not resort to racism.
I mean, she was completely out of touch with what life is like for a typical American citizen. It was a unique experience for her just to try to do her own grocery shopping as a publicity stunt.
Oh that would've been much worse than electing a hectomillionaire / possible billionaire who lives in a golden palace atop a skyscraper, flies around in a personalized large passenger jet, and has probably never been in a grocery store, even as a publicity stunt! Close call there!
Slashdot Mirror
It makes sense if the customers pay you lots of money before they die. See: Tobacco, the black market for hard drugs (where customers are sometimes intentionally killed as a marketing stunt), miracle cures, fossil fuels.
I think we better shut this AI down before it's too late!
(Maybe it's already too late!)
At least it gave me some laughs first.
Mod parent up. ZT is just a proprietary VPN system with a few fancy features. Nothing special about it.
From the specs, it looks like these two vehicles use solid-state lithium batteries, which are also being put into some other high-end EVs currently in development. Next question.
If you side with Big Telecom, you'll ensure that nobody will ever upset the empires of Big Tech (in return for some shakedown money). If you side with Big Tech, you let them keep that money, and the barriers for entry are left where they are.
Mod parent up! All the apologists pointing out that the mobile homes haven't become more expensive when adjusted for inflation are right, but they're wrong about the root of the problem.
Seems like we're ready for the living arrangements from Ready Player One, perhaps earlier than expected...how long until we need Terrafoam?
When videogames had gambling in them, you never could've paid real money to play, and the trick was mostly about finding the right one-armed bandit. And it wasn't bad - you got to enjoy some chiptunes and you would eventually get a sweet Porygon for your effort.
I do agree with net neutrality, you changed the question. Telecoms should be forced to carry that hate speech (if contained in technically compliant packets) to Twitter. And then Twitter should be free to delete that hate speech from their platform, and ban the user if they wish.
By contemporary American standards, I think being masculine means being a redpilled incel videogame journalism ethics advocate with a tiki torch and at least 6 guns.
Gooooo Nice Hair! He gets it.
Perhaps legislation that exponentially increases the corporate tax rate for every percentage of market share over 50% (or 33% or 25% depending on what you believe the minimum required number of pie slices is for healthy competition). Force them to price themselves upwards until it's economically possible for competition to arise.
Oooh that is very clever! Only problems I can think of are that it could either unfairly harm niche product monopolies, or allow them through a loophole, depending on how you look at it. There are companies which have a monopoly in small niche markets and aren't doing anything abusive. Just off the top of my head, there's only one company in the US (and the Americas, AFAIK) that re-stitches seatbelts in a way that meets original safety standards, for example.
BTW, I nearly managed to ignore your silly trolling in the form of what you see as a parody of discussion around Barack Obama (actually a parody of a right-wing strawman idea of discussion around Obama), but you don't know that I'm white any more than I know that you're black, so without this knowledge, how could my inherently non-racist insult ever become racist? Even if I did know that you are black (highly, highly doubtful BTW), I could call an individual black man an idiot without being racist - (unlike suggesting that an individual black man is secretly an African Muslim with nothing that could potentially hint at such a background other than his race) so try to troll better in the future. You don't want to be an idiot at trolling.
Do I want to force companies to carry messages regardless of whether the company wants to or not? I think we have to define that more carefully before I answer it, that's too broad and vague. Should companies be forced to present speech on their platforms they don't want to? To that, I'd plainly answer "No."
On the other hand, if you asked me if a telecoms company should be forced to carry technically compliant messages regardless of content, source, or destination, to that I'd plainly answer "Yes."
Stop this false equivalence nonsense between private censorship and government censorship. Stop it.
https://xkcd.com/1357/
Wow, that's what mainstream conservatives believe?
I can sort of understand how they want more competition to appear out of thin fucking air when the USA is dominated by regional monopolies or duopolies for ISPs who will crush any upstarts with an iron fist. I mean of course it's not realistic or feasible, but it's a nice sentiment.
How it will help big players just flies in the face of all logic and history. The lack of net neutrality, tiered internet, would help big players. This isn't news. We can see examples of this from before net neutrality was enacted, in the present day US on cellular Internet to which neutrality doesn't apply, and in other countries that don't have net neutrality, so seek them out if you like, don't be intellectually lazy or intentionally obtuse.
The idea that it will help censorship by giving the government another weapon against businesses is batshit insane tinfoil hattery. Killing an ISP to censor a message would be like nuking a state to destroy a subversive flyer. If the government were brazen and despotic enough to do such a thing, there are already many ways it could be done.
"Ask a conservative?" More like "Ask a right-wing looney-toon dingbat." At least I hope so.
Pretty much everyone with any interest in the issue is, except ISPs and conservative think tanks. Funny how that works, isn't it? Why aren't more tech companies against net neutrality if repealing it would do more than enrich ISPs and give right-wingers woodies?
I'm tempted to ignore anyone who thinks any remotely modern use of "idiot" is a racist insult (thus helping justify my use of it) and who didn't address the central premise of my post, but I'll play ball anyway.
Generally the people who complain about private censorship want to post hate speech. This is what gets removed from services like Facebook and Twitter. But let's call it something else if you want. I've seen some conservative media euphemize it as "certain other positions."
Run s/hate speech/"certain other positions"/g on my post and tell me how I'm wrong.
A lack of net neutrality will vastly empower private censorship. See this post:
https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...
Deplorables should be fighting FOR net neutrality. Weev must be an idiot. He's an admitted nazi and wants to push his ideology deeper into the darkest corners of the web.
LOL idiot, you think that if there's no net neutrality, it'll be easier to post hate speech on the web? No, it will be harder, because the tech megacorps (Google, Facebook, Twitter) will get their services zero-rated, while Gab, 8chan, and Stormfront won't be able to afford such things. This issue is not directly tied to censorship. But a lack of net neutrality will make censorship on private platforms far, far more powerful.
If the deplorables care about "free speech" (by which they mean the right to have their hate speech protected from private consequences and censorship, not what "free speech" is defined as in US law) so much, they should be fighting FOR net neutrality tooth and nail!
You're just looking at one tip of the iceberg. You might want to give this long essay a read:
http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/...
Conservatism in general is not just a misguided, arguably somewhat reasonable pro-business ideology. It's an ancient evil, dressed in a human skinsuit, dressed in a suit and tie, and even many conservatives are not aware of this. Our foe has thousands of years of experience vs. our <300.
So... is it time for the guillotines yet? When will the public turn on those who are betraying them? When will enough of them even realize they're being betrayed?
I saw an interesting article on this the other day, from a 1%er apologist's perspective, but he raised some interesting facts and perhaps unintentionally made a good argument for something adjacent to his point:
http://fortune.com/2015/03/02/...
The reason Americans don't revolt can be summed up with a reference to the old dirty joke about "the barrel." Because the USA's economic system gives most people a day outside "the barrel" at some point in their lives, Americans as a group are apparently willing to accept a system where most people spend most or all of their lives "in the barrel." It's pretty fucked up.
Hey now, there are a lot of terrible things you could say about Ajit Pai. You could call him an anti-human money grubbing corporate whore, for example. You could call him the Internet's vile arch-enemy. But let's not resort to racism.
Take it easy on the deplorables man, ridiculous false equivalency is all they've got!
I mean, she was completely out of touch with what life is like for a typical American citizen. It was a unique experience for her just to try to do her own grocery shopping as a publicity stunt.
Oh that would've been much worse than electing a hectomillionaire / possible billionaire who lives in a golden palace atop a skyscraper, flies around in a personalized large passenger jet, and has probably never been in a grocery store, even as a publicity stunt! Close call there!
Some indeed are cautionary and I think should've been left in. The turbo-sexist ones, not so much.