I may have failed to help you understand, but you were successful in revealing why you can be easily fooled and manipulated.
If emotions are required for an appeal to your sensibilities then, at best, you are likely only going to be a product of your environment instead of being an agent of beneficial change or reason within the environment. Anyone can make an appeal to emotion... including evil & illogical people. But those that can remain level headed and explain why an argument is baseless without getting over emotional are usually valuable. Nuance is lost on those like you, and any analysis at depth is ignored or played off as unworthy of consideration.
Additionally, since you are not able or willing to provide counter points, it is likely you are incapable of a deeper analysis making your own comments anemic If you need emotions behind that statement just imagine someone calling you something vulgar to help make you feel better about yourself. I am not against a good insult or few and participate in regular vulgarities myself.
China has already figured out two important things. Build a large military to keep aggressors out, but conquer others through economy & control of it. They have learned the American way... military is only used against the weak nations in a post WW2 world, otherwise regulate/control everything they can under the guise of protecting you.
Nothing is mightier than money/power. It is the beast that drives war/conflict, and no other. If someones tells you that a war/conflict was fought for a reason other than money/power then you can safely ignore any advice they have for they are someone else's fool.
Running people down in a tank is hardly the only way to perform rights violations against people. Neither is it the most egregious. In most cases a rights violation is usually depending on several factors. Example... missile striking a building to kill a terrorist while also killing innocents is going to be a rights violation to many people. But missile striking a building to destroy and enemy leader while war is declared that collaterally damages innocents will usually not be considered a rights violation. You can tell that there is already spin in those statements because of the verbiage used to describe them though from a purely "technical" perspective both actions killed innocent people just to kill one specific individual.
Getting back to the primary point, it is difficult to quantify "how rights abusive" a nation actually is. There are many ways to "low-key" violate rights to such a degree that they are common place, well accepted, but just endured. When rights violations of this level occur, people start to forget that they exist. And often times due to their prevalence the suffering low-key rights violations cause could actually be worse that just randomly running down one person in a tank in a show of force.
If you resurrected much of America's passed military heroes today, they would likely equate the USA to be the same as many nations they fought to protect America against in the past.
And besides... we don't need a tank, a police officer can just shoot you and likely not get into "meaningful" trouble.
The real problem here is that you are arbitrarily equating a tank running over a person as being worse because you perceive that "authority" is thumbing its nose at human rights. Well, an officer not being treated exactly like they treat regular citizens for killing a person is pretty much the same thing. I can think of many ways to thumb my nose at human rights and get you to think I respect them, in fact politicians spend a lot of time doing just this very thing and getting people to vote for them.
Let me provide you with a working example.
Take two police chiefs. They have comparable crimes rates, incarceration rates, arrest rates, recidivism rates, kill rates of people shot by officers, response rates to crimes, with policies and operations procedures exactly same right down to the placement of punctuation.
If #1 says it is unfortunate we cannot do a better job of stopping crime... you will likely like them. If #2 says he does not care if officers mow criminals down in the streets... you will likely hate them... even though their policies and procedures are the same and produce the same results in the end.
The point is that you allow the imagery and rhetoric to shape your judgement far more than you should allow it to shape your judgement. A cop shooting an unarmed person in their home because they had the wrong information is essentially the same rights violation as a tank running a person down carrying groceries. Both are sanctioned by the state and following state orders and disrespected life for no reasonable cause. If the results of your actions get the innocent killed "in these kinds of ways" then you are committing rights violations because these events require that an unreasonable amount of disregard for human life be present in the situation for them to occur in the first place, even if the situations are entirely different in setting, excuses, and arbitrarily applied laws!
"Any barrier that can be built by tools can be penetrated by tools, it's just a matter of time and preparation."
Do you have locks on your doors? They won't stop a thief that wants in either, but I bet you use them all the same. Locks do at least retard their entry and keeps the thieves with low initiative out so there is at least some benefit.
"For the wall to work, it needs pretty close to continal surveillance in those remote places. Not only along the wall, but in front to detect people who went through or over or under. You also need to be able to catch those people. Once you have those things, you don't really need the physical wall anymore."
A statement of ignorance. Surveillance does not need to be continual. In fact the building of a wall is usually so you can avoid that expense. Only occasional surveillance is necessary.
It is an open border without a wall that would need continual surveillance because there is no wall to delay entry at all.
I don't even agree that we need a stupid wall, but I am smart enough to figure that out, why aren't you?
This may be true, but I was not aware of it until now. I don't begrudge people that get screwed, I only begrudge them when they continue to allow the screwing to keep going on.
I also have other reasons for considering leaving Unity, but now that I learned this it helps to confirm my decision to move to a different platform before I am also in their shoes as well.
I agree, but keep in mind that developing a game engine is a lot of work, and while I have decided to stop using Unity myself, it has helped a lot of indies get their work out there as well.
In many ways some people feel like they have little choice in the matter and wind up making a deal with the devil.
Unity is quickly becoming a bad business model for many of the reasons you mentioned. Open source has its own problems too, but greedy platforms are starting to to hurt the environment enough to encourage a switch to it.
"Why would you end your relationship with an engine company because a different company broke the terms of a legal agreement and threw a tantrum with a rival engine company?"
If you are not smart enough to figure out why that is a strawman argument then you are not likely able to understand the reason why. It is apparent that you are one of those people that keeps supporting businesses that screw their customers.
A fool does not learn from their mistakes (very common). A smart person learns from their mistakes (usually uncommon). A wise person learns from other peoples mistakes (mostly rare).
I am going for the learn from their mistake with going with Unity while I have a chance to move to another engine before I get too far along in my own project. I was already considering making a change before this anyways... but this helped the decision process along.
Unity "Changed" terms mid-way through and is wrecking a businesses viability. That is some pretty harsh action right there. I have very little desire to place my financial risk with a company willing to damage business like this. Unity should have "grandfathered" in businesses already doing something they do not like or gave them a reasonable grace period. The way Unity handled this was not okay in any reasonably objective way in my opinion.
I actually hate this service but everyone in the family wants it... so I pay for two of them.
I hope they come down on me so I can get rid of it entirely.
This will only lose them money in the long run likely because the rule of piracy is if you make content difficult to get a hold of, piracy become so easy that they go there instead of with your bullshit draconian DRM schemes for money.
It's almost as if people are just begging to be taken advantage of.
Here, let me pre-order this game, for this console I cannot control from this company that really abused their customers last time. Here, let me buy this product or service that has been repeatedly reported in the news as being used to spy on me. Here, let me keep using this website, service, or institution that sells my private information for money. Here let me keep voting for this lying son-of-a-bitch because that other liar is somehow worse than that other liar.
Just wondering when are people going figure out why this saying holds true...
"Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!!"
Most victims are actually not victims, but the very perpetrators of their own miseries!
I would pay mind to your post except for this part...
"The markets and science care nothing about your views. They don't even care about your sunk costs fallacies."
Do you know what kind of people make statements like this are? Stupid people... What does it benefit you to antagonize people that do not believe you? Only a stupid person tries to get people upset when it does not benefit them.
Your ignorant suppositions are easily challenged. Lets go ahead and start with the most glaring.
"Without artificial tax policies, fossil fuels can't even compete"
Fossil fuels are burdened with loads of regulations, federal, state, and local taxes. You need to back that farce up with some data.
Also, "Without artificial tax policies"... Can you show me one single "natural tax policy?" Are they not all artificial? This is what is called hyperbole... because it cannot be taken literally and you use it for dramatic effect. Only a person that has already lost the argument needs it.
"Um, guy, I live on the West Coast. We are doing something."
I live in a red state and we are doing something too. The problem is that something is not quantifiable in any meaningful way just yet. I don't have a problem with climate change being real, I am actually not very skeptical about that part... but that still does not mean the "politics" surrounding it is not a hoax all the same, and that is a problem you cannot seem to get your head around.
Your kind has still yet to make a single accurate prediction... are you not already supposed to be under water right now? Mr. West Coast? When you start getting your predictions correct I will definitely pay more mind to your rants. But even then... if your solution to an environmental problems is a "political" wealth redistribution scheme... it's probably better if everyone ignores your solutions to problems.
that's kinda funny... I don't see the "believers" making any changes either. What I do see is that the "believers" keep expecting to give some bald face lying politician power to take people's money in a wealth redistribution plot.
If you actually believed in climate change you would be just as angry at the currently proposed solutions as the "deniers". The proposed solutions won't fix anything but because they are doing something, even if that something is the wrong thing you get all happy about it.
And while science does not care about denial, it also does not care about sheep like you.
The problem is not denial... it's the non-solution people like you are advocating.
This conversation goes better when you use your brain a little.
"Why does AT&T route any calls to you?"
There already are regulations that prevent that without calling up congress to for them to also stop them from invading your privacy. There really is such a thing as too much regulation but it sounds like for people like you anything less than total regulation is zero regulation at all.
"The poles don't belong to the telephone companies. They belong to the power companies. The telephone companies are leasing space on the poles from the power companies."
I guess what I said flew right over your head. No private company providing utilities of any kind should own private property on public lands, this naturally includes more than just ISP's, but it seems you don't get that.
"And I get to vote on who's in charge of that side. That's a rather large difference."
lol, You voted for Ajit Pai? Regulators are appointed moron, they are appointed for the express purpose of getting morons like you pissed off at the regulators rather than Congress and changing your vote for getting screwed. I don't think you are playing with a full deck here... a few fries short of a happy meal... you do know that there are revolving doors between these "agencies" and the industries they regulate right? Go and look up "regulatory capture". They game suckers like you to vote for it to all happen... all for a few cheap and empty promises.
let me tell you how this works. A businesses takes advantage of you a little bit. You get angry. A politician tells you that they will solve the problem if you just vote for them. You vote for them. Politician meets with the business they are going to "protect you from" and makes a back room deal and the result of that backroom deal looks something like this...
end result: you get fucked and lose even more bargaining power because the deal the regulators worked out with your traitor politician got that politician a lot of campaign financing and regulations making it harder for competitors to start up against them. If they are a regulator they get promised a job or something in their family gets a job at the company instead. Point is they "get paid"! And you pay that cost for being moron that wants government to solve market problems you have to solve for yourself.
All I have to do to get your vote is sell you a lie and you will buy it every time. And when you whine to me about problems I will blame the other side for it and you will believe every drop of lies I feed you. And every time I solve a problem I will solve it in a way that "looks" like it was helping you while putting in loop holes for businesses to exploit and when you call me out on that I will promise to fix them if you vote for me again. Getting the point yet? I can play this game until I am old and gray!
"However, you canâ(TM)t easily do something like that with cellular service."
Your points are solid but I would like to expand on it and point out that... Well, you CAN easily do something if you force standards better. The real problem is that they are allowed to operate and control their infrastructure using only their own proprietary protocols which are not compatible with each other and exclusive access to "auctioned frequencies" creating more monopolies yet again as a solution to a problem that does not have to be. There are millions of WiFi routers in homes all over the stinking planet that interoperate with each other fairly well because they use open standards.
The entire purpose of a giving a federal government power to regulate is so that ATT, Verison, Sprint, & T-Mobile would not be allowed to do exactly what they are currently doing. Uncle SAM made a killing off selling thin air just so businesses could turn around and rob you blind with their monopolies to use that thin air! How is this in the best interests of the nation?
"Telecommunications companies started off big, because they had to have the economic muscle to negotiate with many private and gov't entities to achieve a network of sufficient scale to be economically viable."
This is purely specious. You are making a blind claim in this regard, does being big help? Sure does, but it is also often not a requirement like so many people think. Lots of businesses have started off small and then got big. Additionally, the government helped them to create this problem by letting them have private property on public land. The wires and poles should be public property regulated by the government and taken away from the telco's little monopoly fiefdoms. Lowering the barrier to entry in this market would seriously hurt the giants... but they need regulations that provide a high barrier to keep competition out.
" At this size, pure free market solutions are fantasy."
Welcome to the straw-man fallacy. Just because I told someone that their default "regulate all the things" mentality was bad, it does not mean that I am advocating for a pure free market.
But since you brought that up as well. Let me ask you this. Would you rather face down a free-market monopoly screwing you over or would you rather face down a government monopoly screwing you over? One side gets to put you in jail for not doing what they tell you to do.
I agree with you on your other points though. In order for things to work better, customers really do need to care about it more. It is hard to go without when you are standing by your principals but if businesses see a lot of people "just not buying" because of their antics... they will respond or the politicians will respond as well. The one thing we cannot allow is for a regulator to become our voice in what we want done... that only removes us consumers from the bargaining table. We only need regulators telling businesses what they absolutely cannot be allowed to do... like have a monopoly for starters... you get X big and you get broken up... simple as that. If you make back room deals or anything looking like anti-trust with other businesses to form an oligopoly or something similar... then you risk going to jail... no fines, no warnings... just flat out criminal prosecution of the owners or executives involved..
If your solution to problems that businesses have is to run to regulators to solve them then you are going to lose. Or have you not looked at the past Century of the FCC itself? One hardly needs to look at only that industry either to see the same effect.
The correct "free-market" control on capitalist monopoly is for the "consumers" to refuse to buy these product and to start up competing businesses... o wait... sorry you effectively prevented that proper "control" by letting the regulators do that for you and subsequently allowed them to be bought off by the industry to put in regulations that make it very difficult for you to challenge incumbents with new services making it difficult for even super rich businesses to compete.
People like you are the exact reason why Google Fiber failed and the problem is that you don't know why or how that is and when you are told how or why you start calling it victim blaming. Well if you help create support an institution that is oppressing you, you are not exactly a victim.... more like someone getting their comeuppance for being taken for a fool. You can't walk off a cliff and legitimately bitch about gravity pulling you to your doom!
In no uncertain terms... They will buy your "regulators" and "own you" as you "grin from ear to ear" thinking you put them in their places with so called "regulation". It has happened so many time they now tell you to your face how they are going to take advantage of you and you don't even believe it! Even if you substitute capitalism for socialism or even communism they will still be ruling over you, no exception, no mistake. The history is there for everyone to see! The poor endlessly whine about the bourgeoisie ruling over them and what is the first thing the poor do when a problem occurs? They run to the bourgeoisie that control their lives over here and ask them to control their lives over there.
It will not give any kind of control at all. It will only give them the illusion of control. Much like your bank account. Illusion of control... one command from the IRS without even a warrant can cut you flat off from your money. This is what power structure is all about. Letting people exercise the control you want to allow them to have until you have a reason to stop that control.
Always... the person with the power to give or take control is the one in control. Any control you think you have is only at their pleasure. Microsoft will be very bit as bad with your data as Facebook will be, however they might be smarter about how they let people access it so that who is using that data is harder to find out for public perception reasons.
It is hard to discuss things like this with folks like you because you are so full of fallacies and ignorance it hurts. The time it takes to point them all out are more than I care to tackle so I will only go after the most glaring. To be honest you practically need an entire day of introduction to basic logic and how to avoid holding contrary values.
"If congress betrays the people and passes an immoral and unjust law the people don't want, it is not a betrayal of the people nor is it corrupt to ignore it."
This is a strawman fallacy. "The Law" and the "Consitution" are very different things, but apparently you are not capable of understanding that. The Law is just a bunch of rules enforced on people. The constitution is a founding document that gives those "rule writers and enforcers" their authority. Without it, they have no "agreed upon" authority. "We The People" are America... NOT THE GOVERNMENT but you don't seem to understand that. And if you are okay with using your strawman fallacy to deconstruct my point then you are also making the claim that your version of morals are superior to the constitution and that you should be allowed to judge who is a slave or human or having any rights.
"If congress betrays the people and passes an immoral and unjust law the people don't want, it is not a betrayal of the people nor is it corrupt to ignore it."
That is the real hyperbole here. Just because YOU don't like a law they pass does not mean they betrayed anyone. If they pass a law you don't like your job is to get the law changed, NOT IGNORE IT, otherwise you are clearly promoting anarchy the opposite of being civil! If you are going to run around justifying that it is okay to break the law because you disagree with it then so can everyone else for their own petty reasons as well. After all.. why is YOUR understanding of morals so-called superior to a common thugs understanding of it or the law for that matter? Where is your authority for this judgement?
"You seem to claim there is something wrong with innocent and decent people rotting in the system... yet the constitution allows much of it."
That document does NOT allow for it. It is the constant breach of it that is allowing it, get your facts straight.
"In many cases the laws putting them there have been duly passed, and are enforced as written."
This is the REAL show of your ignorance and how contradictory and ignorant you are. Which is is? Where they duly passed or are they betraying you? If as you said "massively corrupt" then it is not possible for them to also be "in many cases...duly passed' So you either do not know what duly means or you are clearly not capable of keeping your own view points of of conflict with each other!
"The constitution does not provide a solution to the current systemic malignancy,"
that's what voting is for... if you and the rest of your fellow voters are as ignorant as you, then THAT is why you think there is no solution.
"if anything, one could argue that it was flawed at its inception that it allowed us to get here."
I suppose you are the only one among us without flaws... This reeks of a nasty God complex. The Constitution "with all of its flaws" is likely better than anything you could put together in a lifetime. You can't even survive one post without a bunch of conflicting view points.
"Partisan / Tribalism should never have been allowed to infiltrate the process for approving judges, or justice department officials."
EVERYTHING IS TRIBAL!! It is human nature, just being pro follow the law vs becoming anarchist in moral outrage is also tribal. You are espousing a tribal view in your bitching and moaning against them!
I espouse "follow the law" not because of tribalism but because if you say ignore it then you cannot justify punishing those that break it for their morals either. That is a hypocrisy and hypocrisy like that not far away from murder, because many time such hypocrisy has been used to justify "dehumaniz
" If you can bend the rules to insure a more moral outcome"
This is what is called using fuzzy logic to justify whatever outcome you choose. Your morals do not match other peoples morals. If you swear to follow the Constitution and then spend time bending it, then you are obviously intentionally breaching your oath and intentionally betraying The People. The moment you start down this path you are corrupt.
The proper process is to uphold that constitution and seek to legally amend the document to match your morals and go through the proper process to see if enough folks agree with your morals. Otherwise you only justify the concept of wiping your ass with it just like those blatantly disregarding it. You know just exactly what you were doing when you starting trying to BEND it in the first place. Acting otherwise clearly indicates that you are more than willing to become a hypocrite about the issue.
There are lots of things everyone disagrees on in the Constitution, but under no circumstances can it be allowed to be trampled for political or moral expediency with rending it completely useless as it has been rendered now. The list of usurpations and abuses of power are more than long and varied enough to make it clear we are potentially or uncomfortably close to just one flash point away from a catastrophic breakdown of our entire society. There are innocent & decent people rotting in the system and no one much cares. Many people are going to vote in a corrupt person regardless of party because now its all about the tribe and making sure your tribe wins at the expense of your fellow citizens.
"It's insane that the FCC (an unelected body) had the authority for something like that to begin with."
They constitutionally do not have that power. The problem is that many people, are suddenly & usually okay when agencies like this do make laws they DO approve of regardless of the constitutionality of them. Kinda like how many people approved of the creation of these laws but then scream that it was illegal to remove them... but like you said... how did they have that power in the first place?
You will find no end to the number of people more than willing to becoming intentionally ignorant and twist what the constitution means right to your face. This is why there is an effort to literally attempt to redefine what words mean slowly over time.
Here is a basic explain of how it happens. The original term for the word evil meant anything that was not desired. Meaning a lazy person is evil... because that behavior is not desired. But now... evil is usually reserved for only the absolute most despicable actions humans take. Most people would not call a person that constantly speeds an evil person though a millennia ago people would have, if they had speed limits.
Same goes for the Constitution. It says all laws can only come from the legislative Branch. Not from the courts, not from the Executive through EO or through any of the agencies that Congress creates. But many people will quickly twist the last sentence in Article 1 Section 8 to imply that Congress can create a department or officer capable of creating law completely undermining Section 1.
The constitution establishes the powers that government gets, meaning that if the power is not granted then they don't have it. It also establishes powers they are to never have like controlling your speech. But since people are more than willing to wipe their ass with the Constitution when it suits their politics the entire document is now worthless. Not a single second goes by where it is not being constantly ignored and the people just accept it, until something gets them all upset and then they think, NOW its okay to call it out... after never saying anything about all other other abuses that have occurred all ready.
Goal Post moving fallacy and straw-man fallacy argument well done... Authorization does not automatically mean "root" access. Gaining root access is irrelevant regardless if such access is going to be attempted. Is a person hacking into your email account search for root access too? Not likely, meaning root access is not the only goal possible.
The point is that Authorization is a piece of a pyramid that rests on top of Identification and Authentication. When either of those base pieces fail, the top piece topples just like the stones would in a physical pyramid.
Identification, Authentication, and Authorization are all VERY different things.
Identification = Information about who you are Authentication = verifying that ID information being provided is correct through a predefined/established process Authorization = gaining permissions or actual access AFTER authentication has checked out.
bio-metrics foolishly rolls all 3 of those things into ONE and that is just bad security practice and it's not going to likely change. The fact that this is still being pursued and developed in this way is tacit proof that real security is not desired or required. Security Theater once again... wins the day!
Slashdot Mirror
I may have failed to help you understand, but you were successful in revealing why you can be easily fooled and manipulated.
If emotions are required for an appeal to your sensibilities then, at best, you are likely only going to be a product of your environment instead of being an agent of beneficial change or reason within the environment. Anyone can make an appeal to emotion... including evil & illogical people. But those that can remain level headed and explain why an argument is baseless without getting over emotional are usually valuable. Nuance is lost on those like you, and any analysis at depth is ignored or played off as unworthy of consideration.
Additionally, since you are not able or willing to provide counter points, it is likely you are incapable of a deeper analysis making your own comments anemic If you need emotions behind that statement just imagine someone calling you something vulgar to help make you feel better about yourself. I am not against a good insult or few and participate in regular vulgarities myself.
China has already figured out two important things. Build a large military to keep aggressors out, but conquer others through economy & control of it. They have learned the American way... military is only used against the weak nations in a post WW2 world, otherwise regulate/control everything they can under the guise of protecting you.
Nothing is mightier than money/power. It is the beast that drives war/conflict, and no other. If someones tells you that a war/conflict was fought for a reason other than money/power then you can safely ignore any advice they have for they are someone else's fool.
This is a false dichotomy.
Running people down in a tank is hardly the only way to perform rights violations against people. Neither is it the most egregious. In most cases a rights violation is usually depending on several factors. Example... missile striking a building to kill a terrorist while also killing innocents is going to be a rights violation to many people. But missile striking a building to destroy and enemy leader while war is declared that collaterally damages innocents will usually not be considered a rights violation. You can tell that there is already spin in those statements because of the verbiage used to describe them though from a purely "technical" perspective both actions killed innocent people just to kill one specific individual.
Getting back to the primary point, it is difficult to quantify "how rights abusive" a nation actually is. There are many ways to "low-key" violate rights to such a degree that they are common place, well accepted, but just endured. When rights violations of this level occur, people start to forget that they exist. And often times due to their prevalence the suffering low-key rights violations cause could actually be worse that just randomly running down one person in a tank in a show of force.
If you resurrected much of America's passed military heroes today, they would likely equate the USA to be the same as many nations they fought to protect America against in the past.
And besides... we don't need a tank, a police officer can just shoot you and likely not get into "meaningful" trouble.
The real problem here is that you are arbitrarily equating a tank running over a person as being worse because you perceive that "authority" is thumbing its nose at human rights. Well, an officer not being treated exactly like they treat regular citizens for killing a person is pretty much the same thing. I can think of many ways to thumb my nose at human rights and get you to think I respect them, in fact politicians spend a lot of time doing just this very thing and getting people to vote for them.
Let me provide you with a working example.
Take two police chiefs. They have comparable crimes rates, incarceration rates, arrest rates, recidivism rates, kill rates of people shot by officers, response rates to crimes, with policies and operations procedures exactly same right down to the placement of punctuation.
If #1 says it is unfortunate we cannot do a better job of stopping crime... you will likely like them.
If #2 says he does not care if officers mow criminals down in the streets... you will likely hate them... even though their policies and procedures are the same and produce the same results in the end.
The point is that you allow the imagery and rhetoric to shape your judgement far more than you should allow it to shape your judgement. A cop shooting an unarmed person in their home because they had the wrong information is essentially the same rights violation as a tank running a person down carrying groceries. Both are sanctioned by the state and following state orders and disrespected life for no reasonable cause. If the results of your actions get the innocent killed "in these kinds of ways" then you are committing rights violations because these events require that an unreasonable amount of disregard for human life be present in the situation for them to occur in the first place, even if the situations are entirely different in setting, excuses, and arbitrarily applied laws!
"Any barrier that can be built by tools can be penetrated by tools, it's just a matter of time and preparation."
Do you have locks on your doors? They won't stop a thief that wants in either, but I bet you use them all the same. Locks do at least retard their entry and keeps the thieves with low initiative out so there is at least some benefit.
"For the wall to work, it needs pretty close to continal surveillance in those remote places. Not only along the wall, but in front to detect people who went through or over or under. You also need to be able to catch those people. Once you have those things, you don't really need the physical wall anymore."
A statement of ignorance. Surveillance does not need to be continual. In fact the building of a wall is usually so you can avoid that expense. Only occasional surveillance is necessary.
It is an open border without a wall that would need continual surveillance because there is no wall to delay entry at all.
I don't even agree that we need a stupid wall, but I am smart enough to figure that out, why aren't you?
This may be true, but I was not aware of it until now. I don't begrudge people that get screwed, I only begrudge them when they continue to allow the screwing to keep going on.
I also have other reasons for considering leaving Unity, but now that I learned this it helps to confirm my decision to move to a different platform before I am also in their shoes as well.
I agree, but keep in mind that developing a game engine is a lot of work, and while I have decided to stop using Unity myself, it has helped a lot of indies get their work out there as well.
In many ways some people feel like they have little choice in the matter and wind up making a deal with the devil.
Unity is quickly becoming a bad business model for many of the reasons you mentioned. Open source has its own problems too, but greedy platforms are starting to to hurt the environment enough to encourage a switch to it.
"Why would you end your relationship with an engine company because a different company broke the terms of a legal agreement and threw a tantrum with a rival engine company?"
If you are not smart enough to figure out why that is a strawman argument then you are not likely able to understand the reason why. It is apparent that you are one of those people that keeps supporting businesses that screw their customers.
A fool does not learn from their mistakes (very common).
A smart person learns from their mistakes (usually uncommon).
A wise person learns from other peoples mistakes (mostly rare).
I am going for the learn from their mistake with going with Unity while I have a chance to move to another engine before I get too far along in my own project. I was already considering making a change before this anyways... but this helped the decision process along.
Unity "Changed" terms mid-way through and is wrecking a businesses viability. That is some pretty harsh action right there. I have very little desire to place my financial risk with a company willing to damage business like this. Unity should have "grandfathered" in businesses already doing something they do not like or gave them a reasonable grace period. The way Unity handled this was not okay in any reasonably objective way in my opinion.
Okay I currently have a subscription to Unity.
I will be definitely canceling it now and letting Unity know that I no longer agree with it's terms of service.
Fuck that noise!
I actually hate this service but everyone in the family wants it... so I pay for two of them.
I hope they come down on me so I can get rid of it entirely.
This will only lose them money in the long run likely because the rule of piracy is if you make content difficult to get a hold of, piracy become so easy that they go there instead of with your bullshit draconian DRM schemes for money.
It's almost as if people are just begging to be taken advantage of.
Here, let me pre-order this game, for this console I cannot control from this company that really abused their customers last time.
Here, let me buy this product or service that has been repeatedly reported in the news as being used to spy on me.
Here, let me keep using this website, service, or institution that sells my private information for money.
Here let me keep voting for this lying son-of-a-bitch because that other liar is somehow worse than that other liar.
Just wondering when are people going figure out why this saying holds true...
"Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!!"
Most victims are actually not victims, but the very perpetrators of their own miseries!
I would pay mind to your post except for this part...
"The markets and science care nothing about your views. They don't even care about your sunk costs fallacies."
Do you know what kind of people make statements like this are? Stupid people... What does it benefit you to antagonize people that do not believe you? Only a stupid person tries to get people upset when it does not benefit them.
https://qz.com/967554/the-five...
Your ignorant suppositions are easily challenged. Lets go ahead and start with the most glaring.
"Without artificial tax policies, fossil fuels can't even compete"
Fossil fuels are burdened with loads of regulations, federal, state, and local taxes. You need to back that farce up with some data.
Also, "Without artificial tax policies"...
Can you show me one single "natural tax policy?" Are they not all artificial? This is what is called hyperbole... because it cannot be taken literally and you use it for dramatic effect. Only a person that has already lost the argument needs it.
"Um, guy, I live on the West Coast. We are doing something."
I live in a red state and we are doing something too. The problem is that something is not quantifiable in any meaningful way just yet. I don't have a problem with climate change being real, I am actually not very skeptical about that part... but that still does not mean the "politics" surrounding it is not a hoax all the same, and that is a problem you cannot seem to get your head around.
Your kind has still yet to make a single accurate prediction... are you not already supposed to be under water right now? Mr. West Coast? When you start getting your predictions correct I will definitely pay more mind to your rants. But even then... if your solution to an environmental problems is a "political" wealth redistribution scheme... it's probably better if everyone ignores your solutions to problems.
that's kinda funny... I don't see the "believers" making any changes either. What I do see is that the "believers" keep expecting to give some bald face lying politician power to take people's money in a wealth redistribution plot.
If you actually believed in climate change you would be just as angry at the currently proposed solutions as the "deniers". The proposed solutions won't fix anything but because they are doing something, even if that something is the wrong thing you get all happy about it.
And while science does not care about denial, it also does not care about sheep like you.
The problem is not denial... it's the non-solution people like you are advocating.
Well, according to many they like it this way because they get to at least vote for the person that betrays them.
This conversation goes better when you use your brain a little.
"Why does AT&T route any calls to you?"
There already are regulations that prevent that without calling up congress to for them to also stop them from invading your privacy. There really is such a thing as too much regulation but it sounds like for people like you anything less than total regulation is zero regulation at all.
"The poles don't belong to the telephone companies. They belong to the power companies. The telephone companies are leasing space on the poles from the power companies."
I guess what I said flew right over your head. No private company providing utilities of any kind should own private property on public lands, this naturally includes more than just ISP's, but it seems you don't get that.
"And I get to vote on who's in charge of that side. That's a rather large difference."
lol, You voted for Ajit Pai? Regulators are appointed moron, they are appointed for the express purpose of getting morons like you pissed off at the regulators rather than Congress and changing your vote for getting screwed. I don't think you are playing with a full deck here... a few fries short of a happy meal... you do know that there are revolving doors between these "agencies" and the industries they regulate right? Go and look up "regulatory capture". They game suckers like you to vote for it to all happen... all for a few cheap and empty promises.
let me tell you how this works. A businesses takes advantage of you a little bit. You get angry. A politician tells you that they will solve the problem if you just vote for them. You vote for them. Politician meets with the business they are going to "protect you from" and makes a back room deal and the result of that backroom deal looks something like this...
end result: you get fucked and lose even more bargaining power because the deal the regulators worked out with your traitor politician got that politician a lot of campaign financing and regulations making it harder for competitors to start up against them. If they are a regulator they get promised a job or something in their family gets a job at the company instead. Point is they "get paid"! And you pay that cost for being moron that wants government to solve market problems you have to solve for yourself.
All I have to do to get your vote is sell you a lie and you will buy it every time. And when you whine to me about problems I will blame the other side for it and you will believe every drop of lies I feed you. And every time I solve a problem I will solve it in a way that "looks" like it was helping you while putting in loop holes for businesses to exploit and when you call me out on that I will promise to fix them if you vote for me again. Getting the point yet? I can play this game until I am old and gray!
"However, you canâ(TM)t easily do something like that with cellular service."
Your points are solid but I would like to expand on it and point out that... Well, you CAN easily do something if you force standards better. The real problem is that they are allowed to operate and control their infrastructure using only their own proprietary protocols which are not compatible with each other and exclusive access to "auctioned frequencies" creating more monopolies yet again as a solution to a problem that does not have to be. There are millions of WiFi routers in homes all over the stinking planet that interoperate with each other fairly well because they use open standards.
The entire purpose of a giving a federal government power to regulate is so that ATT, Verison, Sprint, & T-Mobile would not be allowed to do exactly what they are currently doing. Uncle SAM made a killing off selling thin air just so businesses could turn around and rob you blind with their monopolies to use that thin air! How is this in the best interests of the nation?
"Telecommunications companies started off big, because they had to have the economic muscle to negotiate with many private and gov't entities to achieve a network of sufficient scale to be economically viable."
This is purely specious. You are making a blind claim in this regard, does being big help? Sure does, but it is also often not a requirement like so many people think. Lots of businesses have started off small and then got big. Additionally, the government helped them to create this problem by letting them have private property on public land. The wires and poles should be public property regulated by the government and taken away from the telco's little monopoly fiefdoms. Lowering the barrier to entry in this market would seriously hurt the giants... but they need regulations that provide a high barrier to keep competition out.
" At this size, pure free market solutions are fantasy."
Welcome to the straw-man fallacy. Just because I told someone that their default "regulate all the things" mentality was bad, it does not mean that I am advocating for a pure free market.
But since you brought that up as well. Let me ask you this. Would you rather face down a free-market monopoly screwing you over or would you rather face down a government monopoly screwing you over? One side gets to put you in jail for not doing what they tell you to do.
I agree with you on your other points though. In order for things to work better, customers really do need to care about it more. It is hard to go without when you are standing by your principals but if businesses see a lot of people "just not buying" because of their antics... they will respond or the politicians will respond as well. The one thing we cannot allow is for a regulator to become our voice in what we want done... that only removes us consumers from the bargaining table. We only need regulators telling businesses what they absolutely cannot be allowed to do... like have a monopoly for starters... you get X big and you get broken up... simple as that. If you make back room deals or anything looking like anti-trust with other businesses to form an oligopoly or something similar... then you risk going to jail... no fines, no warnings... just flat out criminal prosecution of the owners or executives involved..
Your logic is bad.
If your solution to problems that businesses have is to run to regulators to solve them then you are going to lose. Or have you not looked at the past Century of the FCC itself? One hardly needs to look at only that industry either to see the same effect.
The correct "free-market" control on capitalist monopoly is for the "consumers" to refuse to buy these product and to start up competing businesses... o wait... sorry you effectively prevented that proper "control" by letting the regulators do that for you and subsequently allowed them to be bought off by the industry to put in regulations that make it very difficult for you to challenge incumbents with new services making it difficult for even super rich businesses to compete.
People like you are the exact reason why Google Fiber failed and the problem is that you don't know why or how that is and when you are told how or why you start calling it victim blaming. Well if you help create support an institution that is oppressing you, you are not exactly a victim.... more like someone getting their comeuppance for being taken for a fool. You can't walk off a cliff and legitimately bitch about gravity pulling you to your doom!
In no uncertain terms... They will buy your "regulators" and "own you" as you "grin from ear to ear" thinking you put them in their places with so called "regulation". It has happened so many time they now tell you to your face how they are going to take advantage of you and you don't even believe it! Even if you substitute capitalism for socialism or even communism they will still be ruling over you, no exception, no mistake. The history is there for everyone to see! The poor endlessly whine about the bourgeoisie ruling over them and what is the first thing the poor do when a problem occurs? They run to the bourgeoisie that control their lives over here and ask them to control their lives over there.
It will not give any kind of control at all. It will only give them the illusion of control. Much like your bank account. Illusion of control... one command from the IRS without even a warrant can cut you flat off from your money. This is what power structure is all about. Letting people exercise the control you want to allow them to have until you have a reason to stop that control.
Always... the person with the power to give or take control is the one in control. Any control you think you have is only at their pleasure. Microsoft will be very bit as bad with your data as Facebook will be, however they might be smarter about how they let people access it so that who is using that data is harder to find out for public perception reasons.
It is hard to discuss things like this with folks like you because you are so full of fallacies and ignorance it hurts. The time it takes to point them all out are more than I care to tackle so I will only go after the most glaring. To be honest you practically need an entire day of introduction to basic logic and how to avoid holding contrary values.
"If congress betrays the people and passes an immoral and unjust law the people don't want, it is not a betrayal of the people nor is it corrupt to ignore it."
This is a strawman fallacy. "The Law" and the "Consitution" are very different things, but apparently you are not capable of understanding that. The Law is just a bunch of rules enforced on people. The constitution is a founding document that gives those "rule writers and enforcers" their authority. Without it, they have no "agreed upon" authority. "We The People" are America... NOT THE GOVERNMENT but you don't seem to understand that. And if you are okay with using your strawman fallacy to deconstruct my point then you are also making the claim that your version of morals are superior to the constitution and that you should be allowed to judge who is a slave or human or having any rights.
"If congress betrays the people and passes an immoral and unjust law the people don't want, it is not a betrayal of the people nor is it corrupt to ignore it."
That is the real hyperbole here. Just because YOU don't like a law they pass does not mean they betrayed anyone. If they pass a law you don't like your job is to get the law changed, NOT IGNORE IT, otherwise you are clearly promoting anarchy the opposite of being civil! If you are going to run around justifying that it is okay to break the law because you disagree with it then so can everyone else for their own petty reasons as well. After all.. why is YOUR understanding of morals so-called superior to a common thugs understanding of it or the law for that matter? Where is your authority for this judgement?
"You seem to claim there is something wrong with innocent and decent people rotting in the system... yet the constitution allows much of it."
That document does NOT allow for it. It is the constant breach of it that is allowing it, get your facts straight.
"In many cases the laws putting them there have been duly passed, and are enforced as written."
This is the REAL show of your ignorance and how contradictory and ignorant you are. Which is is? Where they duly passed or are they betraying you? If as you said "massively corrupt" then it is not possible for them to also be "in many cases...duly passed' So you either do not know what duly means or you are clearly not capable of keeping your own view points of of conflict with each other!
"The constitution does not provide a solution to the current systemic malignancy,"
that's what voting is for... if you and the rest of your fellow voters are as ignorant as you, then THAT is why you think there is no solution.
"if anything, one could argue that it was flawed at its inception that it allowed us to get here."
I suppose you are the only one among us without flaws... This reeks of a nasty God complex. The Constitution "with all of its flaws" is likely better than anything you could put together in a lifetime. You can't even survive one post without a bunch of conflicting view points.
"Partisan / Tribalism should never have been allowed to infiltrate the process for approving judges, or justice department officials."
EVERYTHING IS TRIBAL!! It is human nature, just being pro follow the law vs becoming anarchist in moral outrage is also tribal. You are espousing a tribal view in your bitching and moaning against them!
I espouse "follow the law" not because of tribalism but because if you say ignore it then you cannot justify punishing those that break it for their morals either. That is a hypocrisy and hypocrisy like that not far away from murder, because many time such hypocrisy has been used to justify "dehumaniz
" If you can bend the rules to insure a more moral outcome"
This is what is called using fuzzy logic to justify whatever outcome you choose. Your morals do not match other peoples morals. If you swear to follow the Constitution and then spend time bending it, then you are obviously intentionally breaching your oath and intentionally betraying The People. The moment you start down this path you are corrupt.
The proper process is to uphold that constitution and seek to legally amend the document to match your morals and go through the proper process to see if enough folks agree with your morals. Otherwise you only justify the concept of wiping your ass with it just like those blatantly disregarding it. You know just exactly what you were doing when you starting trying to BEND it in the first place. Acting otherwise clearly indicates that you are more than willing to become a hypocrite about the issue.
There are lots of things everyone disagrees on in the Constitution, but under no circumstances can it be allowed to be trampled for political or moral expediency with rending it completely useless as it has been rendered now. The list of usurpations and abuses of power are more than long and varied enough to make it clear we are potentially or uncomfortably close to just one flash point away from a catastrophic breakdown of our entire society. There are innocent & decent people rotting in the system and no one much cares. Many people are going to vote in a corrupt person regardless of party because now its all about the tribe and making sure your tribe wins at the expense of your fellow citizens.
"It's insane that the FCC (an unelected body) had the authority for something like that to begin with."
They constitutionally do not have that power. The problem is that many people, are suddenly & usually okay when agencies like this do make laws they DO approve of regardless of the constitutionality of them. Kinda like how many people approved of the creation of these laws but then scream that it was illegal to remove them... but like you said... how did they have that power in the first place?
You will find no end to the number of people more than willing to becoming intentionally ignorant and twist what the constitution means right to your face. This is why there is an effort to literally attempt to redefine what words mean slowly over time.
Here is a basic explain of how it happens. The original term for the word evil meant anything that was not desired. Meaning a lazy person is evil... because that behavior is not desired. But now... evil is usually reserved for only the absolute most despicable actions humans take. Most people would not call a person that constantly speeds an evil person though a millennia ago people would have, if they had speed limits.
Same goes for the Constitution. It says all laws can only come from the legislative Branch. Not from the courts, not from the Executive through EO or through any of the agencies that Congress creates. But many people will quickly twist the last sentence in Article 1 Section 8 to imply that Congress can create a department or officer capable of creating law completely undermining Section 1.
The constitution establishes the powers that government gets, meaning that if the power is not granted then they don't have it. It also establishes powers they are to never have like controlling your speech. But since people are more than willing to wipe their ass with the Constitution when it suits their politics the entire document is now worthless. Not a single second goes by where it is not being constantly ignored and the people just accept it, until something gets them all upset and then they think, NOW its okay to call it out... after never saying anything about all other other abuses that have occurred all ready.
Goal Post moving fallacy and straw-man fallacy argument well done... Authorization does not automatically mean "root" access. Gaining root access is irrelevant regardless if such access is going to be attempted. Is a person hacking into your email account search for root access too? Not likely, meaning root access is not the only goal possible.
The point is that Authorization is a piece of a pyramid that rests on top of Identification and Authentication. When either of those base pieces fail, the top piece topples just like the stones would in a physical pyramid.
Identification, Authentication, and Authorization are all VERY different things.
Identification = Information about who you are
Authentication = verifying that ID information being provided is correct through a predefined/established process
Authorization = gaining permissions or actual access AFTER authentication has checked out.
bio-metrics foolishly rolls all 3 of those things into ONE and that is just bad security practice and it's not going to likely change. The fact that this is still being pursued and developed in this way is tacit proof that real security is not desired or required. Security Theater once again... wins the day!
flame bait... there are plenty of pro 2nd amendment democrats that hate Trump and supported it long before Trump was even born.
You are just trying to make up garbage to divide people even further with your "intolerance".