I say if it doesn't reflect fear and actual aversion of a thing, then it's not "*-phobic". But we all know that's now how these labels are used. They're weaponized. Had a conservative figurehead said a similar thing about a liberal figurehead, or an actual homosexual, that word would be bandied about like stink at Coachella.
It's not hate speech because it's not targeting Trump for what he is, but what he does. It has nothing to do with his political leaning.
Also, fuck any conservative that thinks they, of all people, get to decide what is and is not homophobic. They lost that footing when they launched a multi-decade anti-queer campaign across the globe.
It's not hate speech because hate speech doesn't exist. Hate is subjective.
But if you do believe in hate speech and related legislation, your "for what he does" vs "for what he is" doesn't hold water. If you're a choz, and someone says "fuck you, you shib sankler!", are they insulting you for being a choz? After all, chozzes frequently engage in shib sankling, though not all do. Or are they insulting you because you sankle shibs? Maybe they're fine with chozzes but are just against the act of sankling shibs.
And of course you bring it full retard with your last line. Yes, yes, fuck conservatives. THEY don't get to decide what hate speech is! THEY'RE TOO HATEFUL! Only WE get to decide, because we're not HATEFUL! FUCK THEM!
This is why ALL speech has to be free. Otherwise some group of idiots like yourself will decide that they control all speech.
It was a lazy, unfunny "joke", and I'm sure it took Colbert down a peg or two in some people's minds. But there's nothing wrong with being lazy or unfunny.
It was certainly "homophobic" if you're the type to use such a label. Sane people (gay or not) could see it as a offensive without having to resort to a dumb label. But there's nothing wrong with being offensive.
The FCC should have fined him to be consistent with all the other shit they've issued fines over. But the FCC really has no business policing content for morality or decency or whatever else in the first place.
I can't imagine why the FCC has decided not to do anything about this. I doubt they care about their image (see net neutrality) and we all know Trump doesn't give a shit if people see him / his agencies attacking anyone who criticizes him or investigates him.
Above all, Colbert should apologize for being unfunny. I thought the Catholics taught shame.
I've never seen such a requirement, but I guarantee you it would be trivial to trick. I bet you could simply place your index and middle finger in front of the fake iris model and make a scissoring motion when it asks you to blink.
Identification - Who you claim to be. Authentication - Proving you are who you claim to be. Authorization - What you are allowed to do.
It's so fucking simple, yet you fucking retards keep trying to shit it up by chipping away at the authentication piece and relying more on the identification piece.
1.5x (3:2) can be done much more cleanly than a 1.425x (57:40). It also works nicely with the macroblocks sizes in encoded video.
And if you want to play an old game on an emulator? You're gonna have a bad time regardless! NES is 256x224 for NTSC games, for example. In both of these instances you would want to run at 8x native with a black border all around. It's not quite full screen but it won't look like ass.
If you can't tell that there are hideous issues with scaled content, maybe you need glasses. On a 4K or even QHD phone I'd agree it's not an issue for video. In part because they have nice scaling factors (though any non-integer scaling would still be an issue for pixel art), but mainly because of the 5-6" screen size. We're talking about a screen here that's got half the density. It's gonna look bad.
In my D&D game I set the stage by locking the players in my basement, which has been retrofitted to look like and operate as a dungeon. Their only hope of escape is to slay my "dragon".
So far, no D&D player has even complained. Their characters were all hungry for the XP.
I'd rather kill myself than stare at a 2736x1824 screen. WTF kind of sense does that make? Absolutely everything will scale like ass.
Couldn't go for 2880x1920? That's still in your dumb 3:2 aspect ration but lets people scale 1920x1080 content at 1.5x, which isn't great but is a hell of a lot better than the 1.425x the 2736x1824 screen needs. At 2880x1920, 4K goes down at 0.75x, but at 2736x1824 it's an absurd 0.7125x.
Going to 2880x1920 is less than 11% more pixels than 2736x1824, but it would make a world of difference for displaying video and games. Especially at such a low density (267 pixels per inch, which itself would be slightly improved by going to 2880x1920).
Because the production of solar cells is extremely harmful to the environment.
Because the mining of heavy metals, required for solar farms and any sane storage scheme that supports them, is dangerous and harmful to the environment. It's also very loud.
You're an idiot. Wind farms and solar farms take up lots and lots of acreage. They're the worst when it comes to output/space.
I'd be happy to charge my electric car at night if my stupid electric company would offer that rate.
Many power companies charge a flat rate by default, but will offer variable pricing if you ask. Check their website. You may need to upgrade to a "smart meter".
If you have an electric car, and avoid excessive daytime AC use, then variable pricing will almost certainly be a better deal.
If we all just wait until 2 AM to run the AC, we can enjoy much lower rates! And in the winter, don't touch the heater until 2 PM.
You're an idiot. Variable pricing is a direct response to the demand curve. The demand curve is a direct representation of actual power demand. The supply curve is a direct response to the demand curve. Generators are fired up to meet demand, as needed.
Encouraging people to shift demand from the peaks to the valleys, and enticing them with pricing discounts, will result in a slight flattening of the demand curve because only certain demands can actually be shifted. The flattened curve will then cause the variable pricing to adjust, resulting in less incentive to shift demand.
There's also a ceiling - for any given point in time you never want the demand curve to exceed the supply curve. If we got everyone to flip flop and moved peak demand to the middle of the night, countries relying on solar for any chunk of their generation would see a net loss in efficiency / greenness and a net increase in costs. Even a perfectly flat curve will have this issue, because the solar panels and infrastructure have to exist and be paid for regardless of whether they're in use or not.
A more sane approach would be to peg variable pricing to the supply curve and let demand shift naturally. The closest we have to this is the schemes where customers sell back their solar output to their electric company, and they fucking hate this. Pegging costs to the supply curve is also difficult because it's variable in response to the demand curve, and costs aren't known until later. It's such a fucking mess that my local utility scrapped various schemes they had set up that enabled customers to be notified in advance of days that were estimated to be high-demand / high-cost, set targets to reduce/shift demands, and get savings. I don't even think they offer variable rate billing anymore beyond "summer" rates (which are really spring to fall) being higher.
The best solution is to simply average out all costs and charge a flat rate per kWh. You get to cut all the shit overheads of figuring out variable pricing and trying to shift the demand curve artificially. Just increase rates if you need to increase baseline/peak generation to handle the load. The times where the baseline supply curve exceeds demand is the only "problem", and that can be "solved" with a more responsive supply curve, or by ignoring it. Wind and solar, the favorite "green" energy sources, don't exactly have a flat supply curve to target.
Intermittent power is not viable. We don't have viable storage that scales to serve demand. We also don't have "renewable" energy that scales to demand.
The best sources of power we have are nuclear and hydroelectric. By far. They win in nearly every measure. I'd rather live next door to a nuclear plant than a solar cell factory. I'd rather build a dam than constantly mine heavy metals, takes up huge swaths of land for wind and solar farms, drill for and pipe inflammable gas around, etc.
attacks on black and brown lives, oil pipelines through indigenous lands, sexual harassment and assault, ADA access in our communities, immigration policy, lack of clean water in several cities across the country, poverty wages, LGBTQIA rights, and mass shootings are scientific issues
Do you want "anti-science" policies? Because that's how you get them.
Those are not scientific issues. If being against idiots who think those are scientific issues gets me labeled as "anti-science", then I'll proudly wear that label. We need to extricate politics from science, and the loudest of the "pro science" self-labeled group is doing the opposite.
He is still president. That's a perpetual title. He just doesn't hold office anymore, except as an emissary in potentia, and his powers are rather limited.
Is this what they teach little millennials now? He holds no office. The US has no titles of nobility that he could hold. Former presidents are given security details, ambassador assignments, etc. because they know things and are potential targets, because they hold popular influence, etc. They've got less official power than the spouse of the president.
You didn't care to complete #4 the first time, or when you posted again nothing how it was incomplete.
You're just stating the obvious shit we all know, anyway. Hillary and the DNC are corrupt and incompetent and their actions, when exposed, resulted in America rejecting the fuck out of her. (Someone will come along and talk about the popular vote.)
But you can still punish them for missing their assigned shifts.
Going on a union-approved strike doesn't change that unless your union is protected by a labor contract that says otherwise, or the industry is regulated to the point that they can't fire you and replace you with scabs, and you're not "at will" or in a "right to work" state.
I can't remember the last time when a company decided to flush the toilet and get rid of all union labor and rehire a fresh workforce at a much lower cost, but I'd like to see it happen in a few industries (and I'd like to see the opposite happen in a few others).
Slashdot Mirror
Christ, you watch porn in 360p? Is this 1994?
Sick, and apt, burn!
I say if it doesn't reflect fear and actual aversion of a thing, then it's not "*-phobic".
But we all know that's now how these labels are used. They're weaponized. Had a conservative figurehead said a similar thing about a liberal figurehead, or an actual homosexual, that word would be bandied about like stink at Coachella.
It's not hate speech because it's not targeting Trump for what he is, but what he does. It has nothing to do with his political leaning.
Also, fuck any conservative that thinks they, of all people, get to decide what is and is not homophobic. They lost that footing when they launched a multi-decade anti-queer campaign across the globe.
It's not hate speech because hate speech doesn't exist. Hate is subjective.
But if you do believe in hate speech and related legislation, your "for what he does" vs "for what he is" doesn't hold water.
If you're a choz, and someone says "fuck you, you shib sankler!", are they insulting you for being a choz? After all, chozzes frequently engage in shib sankling, though not all do. Or are they insulting you because you sankle shibs? Maybe they're fine with chozzes but are just against the act of sankling shibs.
And of course you bring it full retard with your last line. Yes, yes, fuck conservatives. THEY don't get to decide what hate speech is! THEY'RE TOO HATEFUL! Only WE get to decide, because we're not HATEFUL! FUCK THEM!
This is why ALL speech has to be free. Otherwise some group of idiots like yourself will decide that they control all speech.
This is all sorts of fucked.
It was a lazy, unfunny "joke", and I'm sure it took Colbert down a peg or two in some people's minds.
But there's nothing wrong with being lazy or unfunny.
It was certainly "homophobic" if you're the type to use such a label. Sane people (gay or not) could see it as a offensive without having to resort to a dumb label.
But there's nothing wrong with being offensive.
The FCC should have fined him to be consistent with all the other shit they've issued fines over.
But the FCC really has no business policing content for morality or decency or whatever else in the first place.
I can't imagine why the FCC has decided not to do anything about this. I doubt they care about their image (see net neutrality) and we all know Trump doesn't give a shit if people see him / his agencies attacking anyone who criticizes him or investigates him.
Above all, Colbert should apologize for being unfunny. I thought the Catholics taught shame.
I've never seen such a requirement, but I guarantee you it would be trivial to trick. I bet you could simply place your index and middle finger in front of the fake iris model and make a scissoring motion when it asks you to blink.
Nope.
Identification - Who you claim to be.
Authentication - Proving you are who you claim to be.
Authorization - What you are allowed to do.
It's so fucking simple, yet you fucking retards keep trying to shit it up by chipping away at the authentication piece and relying more on the identification piece.
Scaling is always an issue.
1.5x (3:2) can be done much more cleanly than a 1.425x (57:40). It also works nicely with the macroblocks sizes in encoded video.
And if you want to play an old game on an emulator? You're gonna have a bad time regardless! NES is 256x224 for NTSC games, for example. In both of these instances you would want to run at 8x native with a black border all around. It's not quite full screen but it won't look like ass.
If you can't tell that there are hideous issues with scaled content, maybe you need glasses. On a 4K or even QHD phone I'd agree it's not an issue for video. In part because they have nice scaling factors (though any non-integer scaling would still be an issue for pixel art), but mainly because of the 5-6" screen size. We're talking about a screen here that's got half the density. It's gonna look bad.
What about the accelerating expansion of the universe?
In my D&D game I set the stage by locking the players in my basement, which has been retrofitted to look like and operate as a dungeon.
Their only hope of escape is to slay my "dragon".
So far, no D&D player has even complained. Their characters were all hungry for the XP.
Better fanfic than most.
I'd rather kill myself than stare at a 2736x1824 screen.
WTF kind of sense does that make? Absolutely everything will scale like ass.
Couldn't go for 2880x1920? That's still in your dumb 3:2 aspect ration but lets people scale 1920x1080 content at 1.5x, which isn't great but is a hell of a lot better than the 1.425x the 2736x1824 screen needs. At 2880x1920, 4K goes down at 0.75x, but at 2736x1824 it's an absurd 0.7125x.
Going to 2880x1920 is less than 11% more pixels than 2736x1824, but it would make a world of difference for displaying video and games.
Especially at such a low density (267 pixels per inch, which itself would be slightly improved by going to 2880x1920).
Because the production of solar cells is extremely harmful to the environment.
Because the mining of heavy metals, required for solar farms and any sane storage scheme that supports them, is dangerous and harmful to the environment. It's also very loud.
You're an idiot. Wind farms and solar farms take up lots and lots of acreage. They're the worst when it comes to output/space.
#MFGA
I'd be happy to charge my electric car at night if my stupid electric company would offer that rate.
Many power companies charge a flat rate by default, but will offer variable pricing if you ask. Check their website. You may need to upgrade to a "smart meter".
If you have an electric car, and avoid excessive daytime AC use, then variable pricing will almost certainly be a better deal.
If we all just wait until 2 AM to run the AC, we can enjoy much lower rates! And in the winter, don't touch the heater until 2 PM.
You're an idiot.
Variable pricing is a direct response to the demand curve. The demand curve is a direct representation of actual power demand. The supply curve is a direct response to the demand curve. Generators are fired up to meet demand, as needed.
Encouraging people to shift demand from the peaks to the valleys, and enticing them with pricing discounts, will result in a slight flattening of the demand curve because only certain demands can actually be shifted. The flattened curve will then cause the variable pricing to adjust, resulting in less incentive to shift demand.
There's also a ceiling - for any given point in time you never want the demand curve to exceed the supply curve. If we got everyone to flip flop and moved peak demand to the middle of the night, countries relying on solar for any chunk of their generation would see a net loss in efficiency / greenness and a net increase in costs. Even a perfectly flat curve will have this issue, because the solar panels and infrastructure have to exist and be paid for regardless of whether they're in use or not.
A more sane approach would be to peg variable pricing to the supply curve and let demand shift naturally. The closest we have to this is the schemes where customers sell back their solar output to their electric company, and they fucking hate this. Pegging costs to the supply curve is also difficult because it's variable in response to the demand curve, and costs aren't known until later. It's such a fucking mess that my local utility scrapped various schemes they had set up that enabled customers to be notified in advance of days that were estimated to be high-demand / high-cost, set targets to reduce/shift demands, and get savings. I don't even think they offer variable rate billing anymore beyond "summer" rates (which are really spring to fall) being higher.
The best solution is to simply average out all costs and charge a flat rate per kWh. You get to cut all the shit overheads of figuring out variable pricing and trying to shift the demand curve artificially. Just increase rates if you need to increase baseline/peak generation to handle the load. The times where the baseline supply curve exceeds demand is the only "problem", and that can be "solved" with a more responsive supply curve, or by ignoring it. Wind and solar, the favorite "green" energy sources, don't exactly have a flat supply curve to target.
Not this again.
Intermittent power is not viable. We don't have viable storage that scales to serve demand. We also don't have "renewable" energy that scales to demand.
The best sources of power we have are nuclear and hydroelectric. By far. They win in nearly every measure. I'd rather live next door to a nuclear plant than a solar cell factory. I'd rather build a dam than constantly mine heavy metals, takes up huge swaths of land for wind and solar farms, drill for and pipe inflammable gas around, etc.
I always wonder if there is any animosity between the groups...
There's tons of animosity, actually. Most notably the "T" group is often ostracized and not accepted by the other groups.
attacks on black and brown lives, oil pipelines through indigenous lands, sexual harassment and assault, ADA access in our communities, immigration policy, lack of clean water in several cities across the country, poverty wages, LGBTQIA rights, and mass shootings are scientific issues
Do you want "anti-science" policies? Because that's how you get them.
Those are not scientific issues. If being against idiots who think those are scientific issues gets me labeled as "anti-science", then I'll proudly wear that label.
We need to extricate politics from science, and the loudest of the "pro science" self-labeled group is doing the opposite.
None, if you unplug the WAN link.
I get the reference.
You... realize he's no longer president, right?
He is still president. That's a perpetual title. He just doesn't hold office anymore, except as an emissary in potentia, and his powers are rather limited.
Is this what they teach little millennials now? He holds no office. The US has no titles of nobility that he could hold. Former presidents are given security details, ambassador assignments, etc. because they know things and are potential targets, because they hold popular influence, etc. They've got less official power than the spouse of the president.
You didn't care to complete #4 the first time, or when you posted again nothing how it was incomplete.
You're just stating the obvious shit we all know, anyway. Hillary and the DNC are corrupt and incompetent and their actions, when exposed, resulted in America rejecting the fuck out of her. (Someone will come along and talk about the popular vote.)
The person in question was involved with DUIs and a hit and run.
I'm find with expending some resources to round him up.
The fact that he's an illegal immigrant just means he'll be deported (yet again) instead being incarcerated here.
But you can still punish them for missing their assigned shifts.
Going on a union-approved strike doesn't change that unless your union is protected by a labor contract that says otherwise, or the industry is regulated to the point that they can't fire you and replace you with scabs, and you're not "at will" or in a "right to work" state.
I can't remember the last time when a company decided to flush the toilet and get rid of all union labor and rehire a fresh workforce at a much lower cost, but I'd like to see it happen in a few industries (and I'd like to see the opposite happen in a few others).
Another win for Trump!