There's plenty of people who can't get a bank account of any sort. It's currently about 1 in 6 in the US. Musk's attitude of "fuck poor people, they should just die to get out or my way" is pretty typical of the obscenely wealthy left.
When your victims are locked in an airplane for several hours against their will, it is a physical assault. By proxy, perhaps, but physical nonetheless.
Aside from the usual habit of the news mentioning the maximum possible sentence allowed by the statute as if it were likely, calling in fake bomb threats is a physical assault.
Personally, I wish there were some chance he would get 80 years. Might slow down all the other psychopaths.
I've always assumed "Do Not Track" was akin to unsubscribing from spam mailing lists - it just confirms you're real and guarantees they will continue to spam you/track you until the heat death of the universe.
Google, Facebook and Twitter are all advertising companies. Of course they engage in any and all practices that let them generate more advertising revenue. It'd be a breach of their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders to not do so.
The problem isn't unregulated social media, the problem is lazy, disengaged, gullible, and frankly, stupid voters. Regulating social medial won't solve that. Banning social media won't solve that. Banning the internet won't solve that.
Nothing he proposes will in any way affect the ability of social media to manipulate lazy, disengaged, gullible, stupid voters, it will only change (if it even does that, which is unlikely) who gets to decide how.
Must be nice to live in a place where vehicle registration is that cheap. It's an order of magnitude higher in California, even for old cars. And we kicked a governor out of office for trying to triple that.
If they were mandated, presumably the cost would be lower due to the large volume produced.
You might presume that, and possibly there will even be places where it'd happen. In California, they'd make you get a separate license for it, and slap a tax on top of that.
In addition, we have zero tolerance for abuse of our systems and if we find bad actors who have engaged in this behavior, we will take swift action against them."
I think you mean "if we get caught with bad actors."
The worst acting here is pretending this wasn't all done intentionally.
It's your cable company. If they didn't track what you're watching, they probably couldn't maintain their network properly. (Or, rather, they'd do an even worse job than they do now.)
Unless you're filming your own shows, whoever you're buying your entertainment from can, will, and must track what you're buying from them.
That's what you're supposed to believe, spoon fed to you by the same people pretending to be at the opposite end of the political spectrum. You're ever bit as much a tool as the so-called feminists.
Blind hate is easier to manage than thinking, especially if you're naïve and gullible.
I'd be far more impressed if you weren't a craven coward, afraid to put your name to your insults. But you are, so who cares? Loser. Go ask Mummy for a cookie and some milk, it's bedtime for little boys.
The people behind this "study" aren't feminists. They hate women as much as they hate men. Their specific goal with this sort of propaganda is to reduce women to helpless victims, because helpless victims need protectors. And guess who is (according to them) the only people who can be trusted to protect helpless (all) women from mean (all) men?
If all women are helpless victims and all men are psychotic rapists, then they (and only they) get to control everyone.
It's not about feminism, it's about power. Specifically, power over other people. Convince the world this is BS, and these same people will try to find or create another helpless victim group that needs their (and only their) protection. Children are always good for a few million bucks.
Slashdot Mirror
He's an expert in getting other people to invest in his business ventures, even the government.
I wonder what stock he's planning to start selling to venture capitalists this time.
There's plenty of people who can't get a bank account of any sort. It's currently about 1 in 6 in the US. Musk's attitude of "fuck poor people, they should just die to get out or my way" is pretty typical of the obscenely wealthy left.
For those of us who grew up reading science fiction, the "Space Force" should be called "The Navy," with the existing navy changed to "The Wet Navy."
TDS is rampant here.
When your victims are locked in an airplane for several hours against their will, it is a physical assault. By proxy, perhaps, but physical nonetheless.
In grownupland, actions have consequences.
Aside from the usual habit of the news mentioning the maximum possible sentence allowed by the statute as if it were likely, calling in fake bomb threats is a physical assault.
Personally, I wish there were some chance he would get 80 years. Might slow down all the other psychopaths.
Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters. And 'tard fights. Lots and lots of 'tard fights.
"We"? You have a mouse in your pocket, or have the voices come back? If you'd take your meds, they'd stay away.
I know more than to take legal advice from some anonymous idiot on Slashdot.
I've always assumed "Do Not Track" was akin to unsubscribing from spam mailing lists - it just confirms you're real and guarantees they will continue to spam you/track you until the heat death of the universe.
Google, Facebook and Twitter are all advertising companies. Of course they engage in any and all practices that let them generate more advertising revenue. It'd be a breach of their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders to not do so.
That is always the question, isn't it? And in the end, it is the only question that matters.
And it's not like YouTube doesn't have a track record of bias.
But if you're naïve (or stupid) enough to pay attention to YouTube's recommendations in the first place, unsavory recommendations aren't the problem.
The problem isn't unregulated social media, the problem is lazy, disengaged, gullible, and frankly, stupid voters. Regulating social medial won't solve that. Banning social media won't solve that. Banning the internet won't solve that.
Nothing he proposes will in any way affect the ability of social media to manipulate lazy, disengaged, gullible, stupid voters, it will only change (if it even does that, which is unlikely) who gets to decide how.
I cannot help but wonder if that's the real goal.
Does Cali add taxes every year?
California taxes their own taxes. Literally.
Must be nice to live in a place where vehicle registration is that cheap. It's an order of magnitude higher in California, even for old cars. And we kicked a governor out of office for trying to triple that.
If they were mandated, presumably the cost would be lower due to the large volume produced.
You might presume that, and possibly there will even be places where it'd happen. In California, they'd make you get a separate license for it, and slap a tax on top of that.
Don't forget the cost of any education and certification to keep one's skills current.
In addition, we have zero tolerance for abuse of our systems and if we find bad actors who have engaged in this behavior, we will take swift action against them."
I think you mean "if we get caught with bad actors."
The worst acting here is pretending this wasn't all done intentionally.
It's your cable company. If they didn't track what you're watching, they probably couldn't maintain their network properly. (Or, rather, they'd do an even worse job than they do now.)
Unless you're filming your own shows, whoever you're buying your entertainment from can, will, and must track what you're buying from them.
This is called "living in an grown-up world."
I suspect the name is a clue: The Dewey Decimal system.
That's what you're supposed to believe, spoon fed to you by the same people pretending to be at the opposite end of the political spectrum. You're ever bit as much a tool as the so-called feminists.
Blind hate is easier to manage than thinking, especially if you're naïve and gullible.
Your tin foil hat is slipping, son. But if you took your meds, the voices would go away.
I'd be far more impressed if you weren't a craven coward, afraid to put your name to your insults. But you are, so who cares? Loser. Go ask Mummy for a cookie and some milk, it's bedtime for little boys.
The people behind this "study" aren't feminists. They hate women as much as they hate men. Their specific goal with this sort of propaganda is to reduce women to helpless victims, because helpless victims need protectors. And guess who is (according to them) the only people who can be trusted to protect helpless (all) women from mean (all) men?
If all women are helpless victims and all men are psychotic rapists, then they (and only they) get to control everyone.
It's not about feminism, it's about power. Specifically, power over other people. Convince the world this is BS, and these same people will try to find or create another helpless victim group that needs their (and only their) protection. Children are always good for a few million bucks.
"Any post made to a woman that we don't like, or that conflicts with our political agenda."
Duh.
Well, it is a web site devoted to wishful thinking.