The US Military doesn't just rush off to war because the president gives an order.
Yeah, wow, that's exactly what we need, too. The president issuing orders that the military refuses to follow. That would make our country look super.
The US has balance of powers. No one person can take over the US like Putin has in Russia.
I think Trump would take your statement as a challenge, actually. You think Trump cares about the balance of power and US traditions? I bet the only times that Trump has become familiar with parts of the constitution is when the federal government sued him and his lawyer had to explain.
That's true, so what does he stand for? If he doesn't know, you don't either.
Because he has 7 clear positions with a plan to fix each, while Hillary has 31 nebulous "issues" and a vague attitude on each.
Oh, ok. Well, I guess that if I were the kind of person who decided that I was either going to vote for Trump or Clinton, then I guess either of them makes about as much sense as the other.
Has Trump actually said something truly racist, or did you just label him a racist because that's the go-to label for people you find disagreeable?
The O'Donnell book quotes Trump as saying that he believes laziness is a trait in black people. Trump says that O'Donnell's book is "probably true". Trump isn't quite sure whether or not he used racist language, but he's pretty sure he did.
But, and I really mean this: when you have to define racism to say "but, remember, it doesn't mean all of these enormous groups that he is biased against", it's not really helping the argument.
Then it's too bad that Trump only initially said that the judge can't do his job because he's Mexican and Trump wants to build a wall. He could have pointed out all of those many things, but instead he chose to go with a racist message.
How does running for president change your status as racist ?
Not status, importance. If the idiot down the street from me doesn't like black people then I'll ignore him and he can go fuck himself. If the leader of my country doesn't like black people then that's a serious problem with the image we're showing to the world.
His comment about the judge, in context, pertains to the judges membership in an extremist group
Only if you count "people with Mexican heritage" as an "extremist group", because the only reason Trump initially gave that the judge was not qualified was because the judge's parents are Mexican and Trump wants to build a wall. That's the only reason he initially gave. Go find his speech and wind through the word spaghetti yourself, in between talking about how much Mexicans love him, Trump only cites the fact that Curiel's parents are Mexican as the reason. In the days after he said that then he started saying other stuff as well, which happens every time he has a point. He'll say one thing one day, and the next day it's completely different.
Trumps commentary is about two things - justice and the appearance of the court being impartial.
No, Trump is helpfully pointing out what people already know: that if someone is Mexican, or Hispanic, or Latino, then they probably don't like Trump. Every poll already said that, but now Trump is saying that also. Just the fact that this guy has Mexican parents means that Trump thinks he won't be impartial, that he can't do his job. Think about what that says about Trump and his message.
Actually, he said the intelligent thing to say when you don't know about something.
Are you shitting me? Are you seriously trying to suggest that there are Americans alive now who were born in the 1940s and who have never heard about the fucking Ku Klux Klan?
It could be that in this instance Trump didn't know who David Duke was
In what way is it racist to call out people who say they want to kill you?
It's not. I don't think I said "Donald Trump is racist because he calls out people who say they want to kill him", but I'll go ahead and re-read what I wrote just to make sure.
OK, I re-read it, and sure enough, I didn't say that. So I'm not sure why you're asking me. Maybe you replied to the wrong person.
So in what way is Trump racists.
Other than that time when David Duke endorsed Trump, and Trump said he didn't know enough about the KKK to say that he didn't want to be endorsed by them? How about the time when the justice department sued Trump for not renting to black people? What about the second time the justice department sued him for not renting to black people? Or maybe you're looking for some other examples. If you'd like to do your own research also, feel free.
By the way being Muslim is not a race.
You're right, that's just standard xenophobia. I like how you threw that in, though. "So, how is he racist? And don't mention the Muslim thing."
To be honest, the Liberal Left has made Mockery (see John Stewart) a viable political commentary tool.
Comedians have used mockery, satire, etc as a tool of political and social commentary forever. That's literally what their job is. It's not exactly a new phenomenon. And it's also not limited to any part of the political spectrum, look at people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh if you'd like to see conservatives using mockery in political commentary.
It's also not necessary to capitalize "liberal left" (which is also redundant), or mockery, and it's Jon Stewart, not John.
Why do you want to vote for him? He's unrepentantly racist, why do you want a guy like that leading the country? He doesn't let any perceived insult go unanswered, you really want a guy like that in control of the most powerful military on the planet? We don't need a would-be strongman trying to run the country like Putin runs Russia. Trump's word doesn't mean anything, he'll say something one day on video and the next day he'll say he never said that. He's a sociopath who will say anything to win or escape that particular moment, with no thought to tomorrow. And casting your vote for him just because there are so many people who hate him is probably the worst reason to vote for someone that I've heard so far. "A strong majority in the country doesn't like that guy? That's my candidate!" How about looking to the smaller parties to find someone who actually represents what you believe instead of some stupid troll protest vote?
You're suggesting that running a power network across the sea bed is not part of the set of things that are possible in this world? Is it really impossible, or merely difficult and challenging?
Get back to me when you figure out how to run a grid across the oceans.
It seems silly to assign that job to a programmer. Personally, I would suggest consulting with the world's best electrical engineers. I hear engineers like a challenge.
and put solar cells in the middle of the Atlantic and pacific to make that 24/7 power work out for you
Floating solar farms sounds like a fantastic use of all of that space.
People see this as a good thing but it actually points out the big problem with solar.
No it doesn't, it points out the big problem with not having a decent worldwide electrical grid. The world is always using power, if the transmission capability existed to get that power to the people who need it now then your "problem with solar" is not a problem. It's not a problem with how the power is produced, it's a problem with where the power goes once you produce it. The world doesn't shut off at night, because it is never night across the entire world. You can always produce solar power, and you can always move it to where it's needed. This is not a problem with solar.
Frankly solar is just not going to be practical until a storage method is worked out.
Wrong solution. Connect world power grids and you don't have to store anything until the world produces more power than it uses (in which case, what's the point of storing it?).
May not be a "requirement" but you can't find anything non-"smart" to purchase new.
Yes you can, they are called names like "display panel" instead of "TV". Here you go, notice that many of those have integrated TV tuners. That's essentially a monitor with a TV tuner, which sounds exactly like what people in this thread are saying they use their TV for.
Then the obvious question is why do you have a smart TV at all? If you use some other device for the "smart" part then why did you pay for those features in your TV?
That's not what the retraction says, it says that "management" circulated the new agreement and then goes on to explain what they intended by circulating it. That doesn't sound unauthorized.
I think the "this is costing us more than it used to" explanation fits the facts pretty well.
I think it's more along the lines of "we dropped the price and almost immediately got 10,000 refund requests from the same IP address, let's find out who is trying to take advantage of this policy."
It seems like abuse of the system to me. Amazon had that policy so that people could feel confident shopping there, knowing that if the price dropped then they could go back and get the difference. Instead, a cottage industry formed specifically to get people all of the price drop refunds any time they happen. That wasn't why Amazon had the policy to start with. If that was what Amazon wanted to do then they would have automatically credited every account every time a price was lowered. That was not their sales plan, the policy was there so that you don't need to wait for a sale. If you buy something that goes on sale next week then instead of feeling burned Amazon can generate a little customer goodwill and loyalty by giving you the difference if you ask. It wasn't supposed to be an automated process.
Personally, if I was in the place of whoever was making those decisions at Amazon I would enjoy changing our policy to put out of business a bunch of companies that I see as freeloading off my customers.
I have precisely zero sympathy for cab drivers. What cab drivers don't seem to understand is that there is a single major reason why I always try Uber before calling a cab: Uber provides a superior product. If there was an app that I could use on my phone to order a taxi, where I could see all of the cabs around me, how long it's going to take them to get to me, who the driver is, track them on the way to get me and track the trip (I might not be in the car, I want to make sure it's going to the right place), for roughly the same cost, then I would use taxis. What I don't want is to call a taxi company and hear from a guy who is on the other side of the city so it's going to take him 30 minutes to get to me, then when he does the car smells like shit, the driver has a shit attitude, the seats and floor have questionable cleaning standards, and it's going to cost me $40 to go 10 miles.
If the taxis did what Uber is good at then I would not have a problem using taxis. Taxis don't do that though, they have had years to invest in technology like that and haven't done it. I'm not going to sit at home worrying about how they're going to pay off that permit, they made their bed and they get to lay in it.
Useless by virtue of not having any abilities that would cause someone to pay you to do anything. If there are relatively cheap robots that don't need time off, paid leave, health insurance, or a paycheck at all (after completing the initial investment), and they're capable of doing any kind of manual labor, then someone who is only capable of doing manual labor is fairly useless to anyone who needs labor. The alternative would basically be working for nearly slave wages. I assume he's imagining that these people will be able to survive by virtue of some kind of social security system that pays people a basic income derived from taxes on business. Maybe that tax will be enough to make it cheaper to hire people instead of buying robots, but there's definitely going to come a time when all manner of menial jobs will be performed by robots. The question is what happens to the people who don't have any skills other than those required for menial jobs.
The major question here is if the judge has the jurisdiction to issue this order. He does not.
Well, it sounds like that major question was answered by notable law scholar dcooper_db9. We can all go on with our day now. Make sure to notify the judge that he's wrong. Don't bother justifying anything, just tell him he's wrong.
I would argue NO app needs to know the level of my battery.
this is meta data. should I have to explain that to a smart guy like you?
OK, so "power saving mode" should not be a feature on a "smart phone", according to you. A good programmer who respects your privacy will not have a function to listen to power save events, because they don't need to know that.
Slashdot Mirror
The US Military doesn't just rush off to war because the president gives an order.
Yeah, wow, that's exactly what we need, too. The president issuing orders that the military refuses to follow. That would make our country look super.
The US has balance of powers. No one person can take over the US like Putin has in Russia.
I think Trump would take your statement as a challenge, actually. You think Trump cares about the balance of power and US traditions? I bet the only times that Trump has become familiar with parts of the constitution is when the federal government sued him and his lawyer had to explain.
That's true, so what does he stand for? If he doesn't know, you don't either.
You're not helping.
Because he has 7 clear positions with a plan to fix each, while Hillary has 31 nebulous "issues" and a vague attitude on each.
Oh, ok. Well, I guess that if I were the kind of person who decided that I was either going to vote for Trump or Clinton, then I guess either of them makes about as much sense as the other.
Has Trump actually said something truly racist, or did you just label him a racist because that's the go-to label for people you find disagreeable?
The O'Donnell book quotes Trump as saying that he believes laziness is a trait in black people. Trump says that O'Donnell's book is "probably true". Trump isn't quite sure whether or not he used racist language, but he's pretty sure he did.
But, and I really mean this: when you have to define racism to say "but, remember, it doesn't mean all of these enormous groups that he is biased against", it's not really helping the argument.
Honesty is not exactly Trump's forte. He literally says something, on tape, and then claims he never said that.
you dont get to the level he was (pretty much a couple steps behind top dog) in only a year
How long did it take you? You know so much, so I'm curious how long it takes one to advance in an organization as prestigious as the KKK.
Then it's too bad that Trump only initially said that the judge can't do his job because he's Mexican and Trump wants to build a wall. He could have pointed out all of those many things, but instead he chose to go with a racist message.
How does running for president change your status as racist ?
Not status, importance. If the idiot down the street from me doesn't like black people then I'll ignore him and he can go fuck himself. If the leader of my country doesn't like black people then that's a serious problem with the image we're showing to the world.
His comment about the judge, in context, pertains to the judges membership in an extremist group
Only if you count "people with Mexican heritage" as an "extremist group", because the only reason Trump initially gave that the judge was not qualified was because the judge's parents are Mexican and Trump wants to build a wall. That's the only reason he initially gave. Go find his speech and wind through the word spaghetti yourself, in between talking about how much Mexicans love him, Trump only cites the fact that Curiel's parents are Mexican as the reason. In the days after he said that then he started saying other stuff as well, which happens every time he has a point. He'll say one thing one day, and the next day it's completely different.
Trumps commentary is about two things - justice and the appearance of the court being impartial.
No, Trump is helpfully pointing out what people already know: that if someone is Mexican, or Hispanic, or Latino, then they probably don't like Trump. Every poll already said that, but now Trump is saying that also. Just the fact that this guy has Mexican parents means that Trump thinks he won't be impartial, that he can't do his job. Think about what that says about Trump and his message.
Actually, he said the intelligent thing to say when you don't know about something.
Are you shitting me? Are you seriously trying to suggest that there are Americans alive now who were born in the 1940s and who have never heard about the fucking Ku Klux Klan?
It could be that in this instance Trump didn't know who David Duke was
Well, yeah, I guess that could be the case, but Trump did know who David Duke was in 1991, and also in 2000 when Trump specifically cited Duke as the reason why he didn't want to accept the Reform Party nomination. Even called him a "Klansman", now what the hell do you think "Klansman" means?
What do you think is more likely, that Trump does not know what the KKK is or who David Duke is, or that he's a lying sack of shit?
In what way is it racist to call out people who say they want to kill you?
It's not. I don't think I said "Donald Trump is racist because he calls out people who say they want to kill him", but I'll go ahead and re-read what I wrote just to make sure.
OK, I re-read it, and sure enough, I didn't say that. So I'm not sure why you're asking me. Maybe you replied to the wrong person.
So in what way is Trump racists.
Other than that time when David Duke endorsed Trump, and Trump said he didn't know enough about the KKK to say that he didn't want to be endorsed by them? How about the time when the justice department sued Trump for not renting to black people? What about the second time the justice department sued him for not renting to black people? Or maybe you're looking for some other examples. If you'd like to do your own research also, feel free.
By the way being Muslim is not a race.
You're right, that's just standard xenophobia. I like how you threw that in, though. "So, how is he racist? And don't mention the Muslim thing."
There are no fewer than 17 other political parties with restricted ballot access. Maybe that's the real problem.
To be honest, the Liberal Left has made Mockery (see John Stewart) a viable political commentary tool.
Comedians have used mockery, satire, etc as a tool of political and social commentary forever. That's literally what their job is. It's not exactly a new phenomenon. And it's also not limited to any part of the political spectrum, look at people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh if you'd like to see conservatives using mockery in political commentary.
It's also not necessary to capitalize "liberal left" (which is also redundant), or mockery, and it's Jon Stewart, not John.
Why do you want to vote for him? He's unrepentantly racist, why do you want a guy like that leading the country? He doesn't let any perceived insult go unanswered, you really want a guy like that in control of the most powerful military on the planet? We don't need a would-be strongman trying to run the country like Putin runs Russia. Trump's word doesn't mean anything, he'll say something one day on video and the next day he'll say he never said that. He's a sociopath who will say anything to win or escape that particular moment, with no thought to tomorrow. And casting your vote for him just because there are so many people who hate him is probably the worst reason to vote for someone that I've heard so far. "A strong majority in the country doesn't like that guy? That's my candidate!" How about looking to the smaller parties to find someone who actually represents what you believe instead of some stupid troll protest vote?
You're suggesting that running a power network across the sea bed is not part of the set of things that are possible in this world? Is it really impossible, or merely difficult and challenging?
Get back to me when you figure out how to run a grid across the oceans.
It seems silly to assign that job to a programmer. Personally, I would suggest consulting with the world's best electrical engineers. I hear engineers like a challenge.
and put solar cells in the middle of the Atlantic and pacific to make that 24/7 power work out for you
Floating solar farms sounds like a fantastic use of all of that space.
People see this as a good thing but it actually points out the big problem with solar.
No it doesn't, it points out the big problem with not having a decent worldwide electrical grid. The world is always using power, if the transmission capability existed to get that power to the people who need it now then your "problem with solar" is not a problem. It's not a problem with how the power is produced, it's a problem with where the power goes once you produce it. The world doesn't shut off at night, because it is never night across the entire world. You can always produce solar power, and you can always move it to where it's needed. This is not a problem with solar.
Frankly solar is just not going to be practical until a storage method is worked out.
Wrong solution. Connect world power grids and you don't have to store anything until the world produces more power than it uses (in which case, what's the point of storing it?).
May not be a "requirement" but you can't find anything non-"smart" to purchase new.
Yes you can, they are called names like "display panel" instead of "TV". Here you go, notice that many of those have integrated TV tuners. That's essentially a monitor with a TV tuner, which sounds exactly like what people in this thread are saying they use their TV for.
Then the obvious question is why do you have a smart TV at all? If you use some other device for the "smart" part then why did you pay for those features in your TV?
An unauthorized person did this
That's not what the retraction says, it says that "management" circulated the new agreement and then goes on to explain what they intended by circulating it. That doesn't sound unauthorized.
I think the "this is costing us more than it used to" explanation fits the facts pretty well.
I think it's more along the lines of "we dropped the price and almost immediately got 10,000 refund requests from the same IP address, let's find out who is trying to take advantage of this policy."
It seems like abuse of the system to me. Amazon had that policy so that people could feel confident shopping there, knowing that if the price dropped then they could go back and get the difference. Instead, a cottage industry formed specifically to get people all of the price drop refunds any time they happen. That wasn't why Amazon had the policy to start with. If that was what Amazon wanted to do then they would have automatically credited every account every time a price was lowered. That was not their sales plan, the policy was there so that you don't need to wait for a sale. If you buy something that goes on sale next week then instead of feeling burned Amazon can generate a little customer goodwill and loyalty by giving you the difference if you ask. It wasn't supposed to be an automated process.
Personally, if I was in the place of whoever was making those decisions at Amazon I would enjoy changing our policy to put out of business a bunch of companies that I see as freeloading off my customers.
I have precisely zero sympathy for cab drivers. What cab drivers don't seem to understand is that there is a single major reason why I always try Uber before calling a cab: Uber provides a superior product. If there was an app that I could use on my phone to order a taxi, where I could see all of the cabs around me, how long it's going to take them to get to me, who the driver is, track them on the way to get me and track the trip (I might not be in the car, I want to make sure it's going to the right place), for roughly the same cost, then I would use taxis. What I don't want is to call a taxi company and hear from a guy who is on the other side of the city so it's going to take him 30 minutes to get to me, then when he does the car smells like shit, the driver has a shit attitude, the seats and floor have questionable cleaning standards, and it's going to cost me $40 to go 10 miles.
If the taxis did what Uber is good at then I would not have a problem using taxis. Taxis don't do that though, they have had years to invest in technology like that and haven't done it. I'm not going to sit at home worrying about how they're going to pay off that permit, they made their bed and they get to lay in it.
Useless by virtue of not having any abilities that would cause someone to pay you to do anything. If there are relatively cheap robots that don't need time off, paid leave, health insurance, or a paycheck at all (after completing the initial investment), and they're capable of doing any kind of manual labor, then someone who is only capable of doing manual labor is fairly useless to anyone who needs labor. The alternative would basically be working for nearly slave wages. I assume he's imagining that these people will be able to survive by virtue of some kind of social security system that pays people a basic income derived from taxes on business. Maybe that tax will be enough to make it cheaper to hire people instead of buying robots, but there's definitely going to come a time when all manner of menial jobs will be performed by robots. The question is what happens to the people who don't have any skills other than those required for menial jobs.
The major question here is if the judge has the jurisdiction to issue this order. He does not.
Well, it sounds like that major question was answered by notable law scholar dcooper_db9. We can all go on with our day now. Make sure to notify the judge that he's wrong. Don't bother justifying anything, just tell him he's wrong.
I would argue NO app needs to know the level of my battery.
this is meta data. should I have to explain that to a smart guy like you?
OK, so "power saving mode" should not be a feature on a "smart phone", according to you. A good programmer who respects your privacy will not have a function to listen to power save events, because they don't need to know that.