It's aimed at tourists, so the locals owning cars is irrelevant.
The real issues as have been stated in a million comments by now is that it is easier to just walk down the strip or get a taxi and it doesn't go to the airport.
I'm sure the rides it does get are tourists using it one time which shows them that it's quicker to just walk, and it hits the convention center but that's not where the bulk of tourists end up.
Usenet was far more of discussion medium - there are threads in which things are discussed and argued amongst multiple people. Twitter is far more of a soap box medium in which people make a statement which generates some discussion but the format isn't really made for those discussions. For example, the front page of twitter right now has some video of a baby on it: https://twitter.com/dustingrif.... There are 56 comments on it, but 53 thousand retweets and 139 thousand likes - it's pretty clear that the dominant form of interaction isn't actually replying like it would be on usenet.
Bots taking up space in the conversation would be far more intrusive on the discussion format of usenet than on the retweet format of twitter.
> You have chosen to ignore the fact it was used for tarnishing people who weren't involved to begin with and for launching witch hunts.
I didn't claim you impied the "*vast majority of cis people on Twitter" did anything at all.
If the *vast* majority of cis people don't do something then it isn't going to be one of the favorite hobbies of that group. The majority don't have to do it of course, but some significant minority have to and *vast* majority means the minority is insignificant. I would have thought that was obvious enough.
Would you prefer "almost all" rather than "*vast* majority" maybe?
I haven't defended anything so I'm not sure what you interpreting as defensive.
RIght, a very different format. Twitter doesn't have "download all those extra messages" - if you block a bot there is no traffic from it sent to you. There are no news servers having to send and receive all that crap. Blocking data is centralized and thus easy to leverage to remove bots that are being dumb.
I'm not claiming it's the best solution. Seems better than banning accounts entirely because they might be trolls though.
> one of the favourite hobbies of cis people on Twitter is to stalk my account and tell people not to associate with me
Bullshit.
I promise you the *vast* majority of "cis people on Twitter" have no idea who the fuck you are. Their favorite hobbies have nothing to do with you, which should be obvious since they have never heard of you and never will.
It seems a much better solution than banning people, for example. I can block a bot if I think it is too spammy or if I think it casts to wide a net. Having a bot post a reply saying "This account took a picture of a Jewish person they found on the internet to use as their profile pic and hides behind that to post their racist content" that I can block seems much better than having twitter ban an account entirely.
Why is putting the choice in the hands of the user worse than the invisible corporate fiat of banning people?
Taken to the extreme where the majority of posts are from bots would likely be a bad outcome, but there are likely many technical solutions to that involving the block rate that I'm not going to spend time actually thinking about the details of since it's hypothetical and I'm not getting paid too anyway:)
Flamebait means it is designed to provoke an emotional response, specifically offense and anger. Calling something flamebait is literally saying it offends you.
Thinking something is designed to provoke offense doesn't mean it actually offends you.
There is no -1 Disagree or -1 Wrong mod. The correct response is to post a rebuttal. A rebuttal to the actual argument, not an accusation of malice.
When something is designed to be offensive rather than be convincing and likely motivated by a desire to cause offense rather than to discuss varying points of view there is often no point in making a rebuttal - there isn't actually a discussion happening after all.
Which bits of those do you think violate: "You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease"?
> Black, Latino, and Asian Americans are statistically more likely to have the same name as someone else in the country.
> 50 percent of U.S. racial minorities share the same last names, as opposed to 30 percent of white Americans.
You don't have to believe them of course, but "I can't imagine how" is a stupid argument - that a given person isn't smart or creative enough to see something is not a reason to dismiss it - heck we gave that one of those fallacy name things.
I'd have thought you'd have a whole lot more "Robert Cooper" vs "Shaquillia Jackson" born on any given date?
Again with the "I can't imagine" argument. How much time did you spend researching the distributions of names in the US before having your thought?
I think if anything, it proves it. Large quantities of greenhouse gases (sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide) are emitted with every eruption. If these gases are making ice melt when there's a volcanic eruption, it doesn't take a genius to realize the CO2 coming out the back of your car is probably going to have the same effect.
Yes, most people far short of being genius all the way up to being a genius can see that that makes no sense at all. Just because something does X and Y, and X causes Z, doesn't mean that something else that does Y will cause Z. That really should be obvious.
Right, and when words and deeds conflict you judge by the deeds, I thought that was obvious enough to not need stating.
Hitler was not an idiot - when it came to politics and manipulating political events (as a military general it's just a tad more debatable) - he said whatever he needed to to get what he wanted.
Just like when Hillary Clinton said "I consider myself... someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedom" it didn't make that true or actually part of her actual goals and objectives.
Yes, Hitler appealed to the working class and the middle class and at the time socialism was how you appealed to the working class. That didn't make the actual deeds of the Nazis socialist. Socialism and fascism are two sides of the same coin, so it's all that strange really.
Believing a NYTimes article would be the first problem.
2010 was the buy time for housing, the years before that were certainly rent better than owning times (assuming you weren't flipping and hoping to not be the one holding the bag of course).
"when banks fail" is using the term of art "bank failure" which is completely different from and unrelated to banks going out of business due to lack of buyers for their services.
But, sure offer verizon enough money and I'm sure they'll make a special service contract just for you. Enough is likely at ludicrous levels of course.
Given the customers in question are roaming on other networks and that is the reason for them being unprofitable (let's take verizon at their word for a minute...) then clearly there is another provider - the one they are roaming on.
Those consumers are free to negotiate such a service contract or find a provider with such a service contract. I don't give them much chance outside of the month-to-month agreements that seem common enough.
Slashdot Mirror
It's aimed at tourists, so the locals owning cars is irrelevant.
The real issues as have been stated in a million comments by now is that it is easier to just walk down the strip or get a taxi and it doesn't go to the airport.
I'm sure the rides it does get are tourists using it one time which shows them that it's quicker to just walk, and it hits the convention center but that's not where the bulk of tourists end up.
I'm not sure which part of "I'm not claiming it's the best solution" you think implies a bot paradise, but sure.
> Not really. It's still text and binaries.
Everything is text and binaries.
Usenet was far more of discussion medium - there are threads in which things are discussed and argued amongst multiple people. Twitter is far more of a soap box medium in which people make a statement which generates some discussion but the format isn't really made for those discussions. For example, the front page of twitter right now has some video of a baby on it: https://twitter.com/dustingrif.... There are 56 comments on it, but 53 thousand retweets and 139 thousand likes - it's pretty clear that the dominant form of interaction isn't actually replying like it would be on usenet.
Bots taking up space in the conversation would be far more intrusive on the discussion format of usenet than on the retweet format of twitter.
> You have chosen to ignore the fact it was used for tarnishing people who weren't involved to begin with and for launching witch hunts.
No I addressed that.
I didn't claim you impied the "*vast majority of cis people on Twitter" did anything at all.
If the *vast* majority of cis people don't do something then it isn't going to be one of the favorite hobbies of that group. The majority don't have to do it of course, but some significant minority have to and *vast* majority means the minority is insignificant. I would have thought that was obvious enough.
Would you prefer "almost all" rather than "*vast* majority" maybe?
I haven't defended anything so I'm not sure what you interpreting as defensive.
RIght, a very different format. Twitter doesn't have "download all those extra messages" - if you block a bot there is no traffic from it sent to you. There are no news servers having to send and receive all that crap. Blocking data is centralized and thus easy to leverage to remove bots that are being dumb.
I'm not claiming it's the best solution. Seems better than banning accounts entirely because they might be trolls though.
Is a very different format. Are you claiming that banning people entirely from posting was an option on usenet?
> one of the favourite hobbies of cis people on Twitter is to stalk my account and tell people not to associate with me
Bullshit.
I promise you the *vast* majority of "cis people on Twitter" have no idea who the fuck you are. Their favorite hobbies have nothing to do with you, which should be obvious since they have never heard of you and never will.
Why not?
It seems a much better solution than banning people, for example. I can block a bot if I think it is too spammy or if I think it casts to wide a net. Having a bot post a reply saying "This account took a picture of a Jewish person they found on the internet to use as their profile pic and hides behind that to post their racist content" that I can block seems much better than having twitter ban an account entirely.
Why is putting the choice in the hands of the user worse than the invisible corporate fiat of banning people?
Taken to the extreme where the majority of posts are from bots would likely be a bad outcome, but there are likely many technical solutions to that involving the block rate that I'm not going to spend time actually thinking about the details of since it's hypothetical and I'm not getting paid too anyway :)
"yes, just like a secretary".
Flamebait means it is designed to provoke an emotional response, specifically offense and anger. Calling something flamebait is literally saying it offends you.
Thinking something is designed to provoke offense doesn't mean it actually offends you.
There is no -1 Disagree or -1 Wrong mod. The correct response is to post a rebuttal. A rebuttal to the actual argument, not an accusation of malice.
When something is designed to be offensive rather than be convincing and likely motivated by a desire to cause offense rather than to discuss varying points of view there is often no point in making a rebuttal - there isn't actually a discussion happening after all.
Welcome to America.
Which bits of those do you think violate: "You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease"?
The article claims:
> Black, Latino, and Asian Americans are statistically more likely to have the same name as someone else in the country.
> 50 percent of U.S. racial minorities share the same last names, as opposed to 30 percent of white Americans.
You don't have to believe them of course, but "I can't imagine how" is a stupid argument - that a given person isn't smart or creative enough to see something is not a reason to dismiss it - heck we gave that one of those fallacy name things.
Again with the "I can't imagine" argument. How much time did you spend researching the distributions of names in the US before having your thought?
Yes, most people far short of being genius all the way up to being a genius can see that that makes no sense at all. Just because something does X and Y, and X causes Z, doesn't mean that something else that does Y will cause Z. That really should be obvious.
You aren't shopping at whole foods in the first place. So who cares?
Or just more concerned with what other people think about them?
Right, and when words and deeds conflict you judge by the deeds, I thought that was obvious enough to not need stating.
Hitler was not an idiot - when it came to politics and manipulating political events (as a military general it's just a tad more debatable) - he said whatever he needed to to get what he wanted.
Just like when Hillary Clinton said "I consider myself ... someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedom" it didn't make that true or actually part of her actual goals and objectives.
Yes, Hitler appealed to the working class and the middle class and at the time socialism was how you appealed to the working class. That didn't make the actual deeds of the Nazis socialist. Socialism and fascism are two sides of the same coin, so it's all that strange really.
>>Does it follow that Europe's nasty record of being the number one killer in the world was a result of free speech?
>Didn't the USA take the title when it dropped nukes on the Japanese?
Not by a long shot. And if you thought about it for a half a second it would be obvious - just how many people do you think were in those two cities?
Do you also think North Korea is a democratic republic?
It's usually better to judge groups on their words and deeds rather than on their names.
Believing a NYTimes article would be the first problem.
2010 was the buy time for housing, the years before that were certainly rent better than owning times (assuming you weren't flipping and hoping to not be the one holding the bag of course).
Heck even the housing doom and gloomers were calling that: http://housingpanic.blogspot.c...
"when banks fail" is using the term of art "bank failure" which is completely different from and unrelated to banks going out of business due to lack of buyers for their services.
It'll be a challenge to negotiate a better deal than: "do whatever you want, make up your own goals with no penalties if you miss them anyway".
Is reading two sentences too much effort for you?
But, sure offer verizon enough money and I'm sure they'll make a special service contract just for you. Enough is likely at ludicrous levels of course.
Given the customers in question are roaming on other networks and that is the reason for them being unprofitable (let's take verizon at their word for a minute...) then clearly there is another provider - the one they are roaming on.
Those consumers are free to negotiate such a service contract or find a provider with such a service contract. I don't give them much chance outside of the month-to-month agreements that seem common enough.