Usually, you write some interesting, thoughtful things. This is not one of those cases: non sequitur after non sequitur blaming increasingly disassociated phenomena on the Internet.
Also, Godwin'd.
You are not wrong about hype and monetization, but what about some personal responsibility for the people who actually killed and displaced the millions? Those actors would much have preferred no Internet to spread the news of their wanton destruction.
No, money is a unit of suffering: "Do I willingly suffer now for benefit later?"
That is why economic actors can find middle ground where they both benefit: their incentive is to make themselves suffer the least; textbooks frame this as "seeking the most benefit".
You think the page designers make the decisions to add the advertising & tracking pixels? No.
Those decisions are made by the people who pay them. Some of us cranks sit in meetings and point out the drawbacks to their incestuous, ignorant greed, but again, we don't have the final decision.
But the WORST bit is that it forces pages to be developed in one way, "the Google Way", which may or may not bear any resemblance to the business request, much less maintainability.
Unfortunately for your argument, I live in Denver, so I'm very familiar with what a big ole jet airliner looks like from 60 miles away.
Now that I've looked into the link a bit more, though, that page's theory indicates that the chopper would be pointing at a flight which was roughly 30 degrees from North, but the chopper's compass is never pointed past 10 degrees from North.
I never thought I'd see the DNC get so low that they'd allow the most corrupt politician in American history be their front runner
That's some fine hyperbole there, commentor. Ever hear of "Boss" Tweed, Edwin Edwards, Rod Blagoevich, James Traficant, Duke Cunningham? *coughcough*LBJ?*coughcough*
Islamic radicals, incidentally, were the ones behind the assassination of that Russian diplomat.
Could "Islamic radicals" have cleared all the security from the room, leaving one young "off-duty" riot policeman, in a $5000 suit, alone to deliver his full message in full view of the assembled press?
Hmm. I'm not sure that line exists. I'm sure that we would have "lunch counter" problems, still, in such instances.
I don't think that individuals have a natural right to refuse nominally-public-accommodation. I could be persuaded otherwise, but I am pretty sure that "Equal Protection Under the Law" has this interpretation.
The guiding principle is The Golden Rule. Why is it acceptable for someone's business to be rejected based on arbitrary criteria? Laws to eliminate patterns of discrimination are hardly a bad thing, no?
You have made a distinction between corporations and sole proprietors which simply does not exist in the case of refusal of public accommodation.
You seem to think that I can refuse service to whomever I like. This is true, but there are consequences. If one of those consequences is a blanket ban on a class of people (as opposed to rejecting a disruptive patron), then *I* am in the wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually, you write some interesting, thoughtful things. This is not one of those cases: non sequitur after non sequitur blaming increasingly disassociated phenomena on the Internet. Also, Godwin'd. You are not wrong about hype and monetization, but what about some personal responsibility for the people who actually killed and displaced the millions? Those actors would much have preferred no Internet to spread the news of their wanton destruction.
No, money is a unit of suffering: "Do I willingly suffer now for benefit later?"
That is why economic actors can find middle ground where they both benefit: their incentive is to make themselves suffer the least; textbooks frame this as "seeking the most benefit".
You think the page designers make the decisions to add the advertising & tracking pixels? No.
Those decisions are made by the people who pay them. Some of us cranks sit in meetings and point out the drawbacks to their incestuous, ignorant greed, but again, we don't have the final decision.
He already claimed that; something something, broad daylight in Times Square, something second amendment something.
Wait -- Trump is a pedophile?
DIfferent implementations of what on Android is a "back" button.
But the WORST bit is that it forces pages to be developed in one way, "the Google Way", which may or may not bear any resemblance to the business request, much less maintainability.
Gigantic scam. Only helps Google, not the Web.
Not the problem, the problem is the inability of someone to distinguish such a person from a used car salesman with a slick line in pretending
No problem, no problem. You're the problem.
Hm, apparently the IR camera was pointed 8 degrees clockwise from the body of the chopper. Never mind.
Unfortunately for your argument, I live in Denver, so I'm very familiar with what a big ole jet airliner looks like from 60 miles away. Now that I've looked into the link a bit more, though, that page's theory indicates that the chopper would be pointing at a flight which was roughly 30 degrees from North, but the chopper's compass is never pointed past 10 degrees from North.
Ok, then where did the plane go on visible-light filter?
Did you watch the video?
Unless downloading means something else to marketing people than it means to me...
EVERYTHING means something else to marketing people than it does to ...differently-educated folks like Slashdotters.
see commercial flight from nearby airport
Would you like to know how I know you haven't actually watched the video?
Yes, "light truck" is in relation to full-sized rigs.
I never thought I'd see the DNC get so low that they'd allow the most corrupt politician in American history be their front runner
That's some fine hyperbole there, commentor. Ever hear of "Boss" Tweed, Edwin Edwards, Rod Blagoevich, James Traficant, Duke Cunningham? *coughcough*LBJ?*coughcough*
Islamic radicals, incidentally, were the ones behind the assassination of that Russian diplomat.
Could "Islamic radicals" have cleared all the security from the room, leaving one young "off-duty" riot policeman, in a $5000 suit , alone to deliver his full message in full view of the assembled press?
Hmm. I'm not sure that line exists. I'm sure that we would have "lunch counter" problems, still, in such instances.
I don't think that individuals have a natural right to refuse nominally-public-accommodation. I could be persuaded otherwise, but I am pretty sure that "Equal Protection Under the Law" has this interpretation.
The guiding principle is The Golden Rule. Why is it acceptable for someone's business to be rejected based on arbitrary criteria? Laws to eliminate patterns of discrimination are hardly a bad thing, no?
That doesn't have the Queen, the Vatican, the Gettys, the Rothschilds, Col. Sanders, etc. etc...
Do you happen to have a link to your newsletter?
Err, "rube" not stooge, to be clear.
We are agreeing. Just saying that history shows that stooges are often, if not exclusively, egged on and funded by government agents.
Hm, history would tell us that the "false intel" is how the "false flag" is carried out.
I also have some theories along those lines about the assassination of the Russian ambassador last week. The scene was too controlled.
You have made a distinction between corporations and sole proprietors which simply does not exist in the case of refusal of public accommodation.
You seem to think that I can refuse service to whomever I like. This is true, but there are consequences. If one of those consequences is a blanket ban on a class of people (as opposed to rejecting a disruptive patron), then *I* am in the wrong.
why the hell is it OK to FORCE a fundamental Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding?
I'll bite. Try this:
why the hell is it OK to FORCE a {white supremacist} baker to bake a cake for a {black} wedding?
Still feel the same way?