Socially right, economically I'd say undefined as their state wasn't / isn't really much of a state.
Well, we finally have something we can agree on.
The point I was trying to make is that there is more to politics than a simple left-right dichotomy. I would guess that we can agree that at least there are two properties to it, social politics and economic politics. If you have an issue with the terms, let's call the extremes on both axes "permissive" and "restrictive", or give them any label you enjoy but I don't think labeling them "left" and "right" would do it justice, for the extreme positions of "left" and "right" are Stalinism and Fascism, and they both are on the extreme end of social restrictive.
That's not to mean that restrictive means "bad" and permissive is "good". An extreme permissive society ultimately leads to anarchy, which in turn, due to human nature, leads to despotism because somehow we can't just NOT be governed. Extremely restrictive societies are basically police states with Nazi Germany being a pretty good example of the more recent past. Extremely permissive economy leads to social problems, we've seen that in the industrial revolution where workers were exploited up to and beyond their graves for profit, with child labor, 16 hour days, extremely dangerous working conditions and all the other unpleasant problems this entailed. Extreme restrictions on economy, i.e. state-run economy has been tried, too, and I hope everyone remembers just how great that experiment went. Actually, take a look at North Korea, where there's one of the last examples on exhibition.
Neither permissive nor restrictive is good or bad. Both are good in moderation, in my opinion.
I doubt that anyone could sensibly argue that any of those extreme positions are a good idea. The question is where in between them the perfect spot is. In my opinion, the duty of the state is to make sure that everyone, no matter his upbringing, can succeed provided he can put his own skills to it. But that's my opinion. Some may argue that this is unfair towards those whose parents worked hard already to offer their kids a better start into the world. Others may argue that I don't care enough for those whose abilities don't allow them to succeed and that they need to be taken care of, too. Is any of these positions "right" (as in correct, not as the opposite of left)?
I doubt that there is a "correct" political opinion. But I am pretty sure that there are some that are just plainly wrong, i.e. all that benefit a small minority on the expense of the general population. Aside of that, well, there's room for debate.
We should maybe see a difference between people of the same sex coming together, which is a choice, and being a single mother which is more often than not NOT the choice of the woman.
The main problem is here that they are not allowed to choose to not become a single mother...
Ok, what is the difference between Stalinist Russia and post-WW2 Sweden? Both are left. Is Sweden "moderate" left? And thus more "right"? Because you can't get more economic "left" than Communist Russia, can you? Then again, an absolutist government like Stalin's is actually more something you'd attribute to the "far right", along with the leader cult and all. Not unlike Hitler, Franco or Mao. No wait, that last one was "left", right? Where does Gandhi fit into it all? Is he "left"? Where would the likes of ISIS be located? Right wing? They would sure fit the anti-democratic, conservative picture, in the most extreme way. But they didn't strike me as the economic laissez-faire type. So are they left? Where do they fit in?
Politics is way more complicated than a simple binary system could represent.
Yes, I've read that. In the end what remains is that Google, and only Google, will get a say in what is going to be considered "permitted ads" in Chrome and what isn't. That requires trusting them. And so far I am sorry to say it but Google is not a company I would put my trust in. I prefer to trust an ad blocker that simply disables all ads, mostly because I know why Google created this ad filter in the first place.
That's another thing I don't get. We make phones thinner and thinner so we can sell cases that get thicker and thicker to keep the phones from falling apart from touching them wrong.
Google gets to define what is an "acceptable" ad and what isn't. I don't doubt that they actually have an interest to weed out the most obnoxious ones simply to keep people from installing adblockers that shut out every ad, but since there are hardly any hard guidelines to follow, it basically comes down to "whatever Google deems bad".
And unless you can name a different motivator for a corporation than money, I'd like to hear it.
If it's for mobile, fine, implement it in the mobile browser. I can't argue whether it's useful in a mobile environment because I'm old enough that watching videos on a screen the size of a few stamps isn't a worthwhile endeavor for me anymore unless I have a decent magnifying lens with me. I cannot see a sensible application on a desktop, though. If you want to have a second window playing a video, the technology is already there. With total control over whether, where and how long this window is going to be open and playing that video.
We have a Chinese retailer claiming to sell a 10nm CPU that has the features (and probably speed) of a 5 year old low budget processor. And since Chinese companies have a spotless track record of never trying to sell counterfeited products, we should readily believe that this seemingly ancient CPU is bleeding edge.
Fuck them. I'm not wasting my time making their site work. If it doesn't provide what I'm looking for or makes using it more painful than it has to be, close page and add the URL to the "-site:" string in the search.
Slashdot Mirror
Are we not men?
About half of us are not.
Not all of them, as you can see. Some are tasty, that's what we call "livestock". Some are fun to hunt. That's what we call "extinct".
Hades: "What? What do the Romans call me? Pluto? Gee, I wouldn't even name my dog like that!"
I thought your name is Earl?
Ok, Javascript next, please.
Oh. Wait...
Socially right, economically I'd say undefined as their state wasn't / isn't really much of a state.
Well, we finally have something we can agree on.
The point I was trying to make is that there is more to politics than a simple left-right dichotomy. I would guess that we can agree that at least there are two properties to it, social politics and economic politics. If you have an issue with the terms, let's call the extremes on both axes "permissive" and "restrictive", or give them any label you enjoy but I don't think labeling them "left" and "right" would do it justice, for the extreme positions of "left" and "right" are Stalinism and Fascism, and they both are on the extreme end of social restrictive.
That's not to mean that restrictive means "bad" and permissive is "good". An extreme permissive society ultimately leads to anarchy, which in turn, due to human nature, leads to despotism because somehow we can't just NOT be governed. Extremely restrictive societies are basically police states with Nazi Germany being a pretty good example of the more recent past. Extremely permissive economy leads to social problems, we've seen that in the industrial revolution where workers were exploited up to and beyond their graves for profit, with child labor, 16 hour days, extremely dangerous working conditions and all the other unpleasant problems this entailed. Extreme restrictions on economy, i.e. state-run economy has been tried, too, and I hope everyone remembers just how great that experiment went. Actually, take a look at North Korea, where there's one of the last examples on exhibition.
Neither permissive nor restrictive is good or bad. Both are good in moderation, in my opinion.
I doubt that anyone could sensibly argue that any of those extreme positions are a good idea. The question is where in between them the perfect spot is. In my opinion, the duty of the state is to make sure that everyone, no matter his upbringing, can succeed provided he can put his own skills to it. But that's my opinion. Some may argue that this is unfair towards those whose parents worked hard already to offer their kids a better start into the world. Others may argue that I don't care enough for those whose abilities don't allow them to succeed and that they need to be taken care of, too. Is any of these positions "right" (as in correct, not as the opposite of left)?
I doubt that there is a "correct" political opinion. But I am pretty sure that there are some that are just plainly wrong, i.e. all that benefit a small minority on the expense of the general population. Aside of that, well, there's room for debate.
We should maybe see a difference between people of the same sex coming together, which is a choice, and being a single mother which is more often than not NOT the choice of the woman.
The main problem is here that they are not allowed to choose to not become a single mother...
Ok, what is the difference between Stalinist Russia and post-WW2 Sweden? Both are left. Is Sweden "moderate" left? And thus more "right"? Because you can't get more economic "left" than Communist Russia, can you? Then again, an absolutist government like Stalin's is actually more something you'd attribute to the "far right", along with the leader cult and all. Not unlike Hitler, Franco or Mao. No wait, that last one was "left", right? Where does Gandhi fit into it all? Is he "left"? Where would the likes of ISIS be located? Right wing? They would sure fit the anti-democratic, conservative picture, in the most extreme way. But they didn't strike me as the economic laissez-faire type. So are they left? Where do they fit in?
Politics is way more complicated than a simple binary system could represent.
Homeless may not be able to rent them, but they're just a lead pipe swing away from having one.
Cars have been used as prosthesis for shortcomings in other departments for ages.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, watch the Mini-Cooper ad.
Yes, I've read that. In the end what remains is that Google, and only Google, will get a say in what is going to be considered "permitted ads" in Chrome and what isn't. That requires trusting them. And so far I am sorry to say it but Google is not a company I would put my trust in. I prefer to trust an ad blocker that simply disables all ads, mostly because I know why Google created this ad filter in the first place.
A manager.
That's another thing I don't get. We make phones thinner and thinner so we can sell cases that get thicker and thicker to keep the phones from falling apart from touching them wrong.
True communism can only work with the new kind of human: The kind that prefers working over making money.
"I motion to have this thrown out on grounds that I'd lose the case if it is allowed to stay"
Eugene is literally following the money...
What world do you live in? In ours it doesn't matter who you vote for but how much money you stuff in his ass.
Whores don't suck you for nice words or cheering for them, they suck you for greenbacks.
I resent that. ;)
He's mostly a populist. He'll tell you whatever you want to hear.
Google gets to define what is an "acceptable" ad and what isn't. I don't doubt that they actually have an interest to weed out the most obnoxious ones simply to keep people from installing adblockers that shut out every ad, but since there are hardly any hard guidelines to follow, it basically comes down to "whatever Google deems bad".
And unless you can name a different motivator for a corporation than money, I'd like to hear it.
If it's for mobile, fine, implement it in the mobile browser. I can't argue whether it's useful in a mobile environment because I'm old enough that watching videos on a screen the size of a few stamps isn't a worthwhile endeavor for me anymore unless I have a decent magnifying lens with me. I cannot see a sensible application on a desktop, though. If you want to have a second window playing a video, the technology is already there. With total control over whether, where and how long this window is going to be open and playing that video.
We have a Chinese retailer claiming to sell a 10nm CPU that has the features (and probably speed) of a 5 year old low budget processor. And since Chinese companies have a spotless track record of never trying to sell counterfeited products, we should readily believe that this seemingly ancient CPU is bleeding edge.
I ... erh... well... how do you put it nicely...
Did Facebook essentially say "we don't want this law to apply to us, so fuck off"?
If this is the problem you have with the Chewbacca defense, it worked.
Makes me wonder... is cr.app already taken?
I hope you never stumble upon a page with information that pop-under's you a porn ad.
Close page.
NEXT!
Fuck them. I'm not wasting my time making their site work. If it doesn't provide what I'm looking for or makes using it more painful than it has to be, close page and add the URL to the "-site:" string in the search.