Opposite is equally true. While the MAD holds, none of the players you mention have any ability to initiate warfare. Attempting to dislodge MAD by advancing capabilities in relevant fields too far unilaterally leads to war.
I'm guessing you're a Swede, where this process is largely finished, or a Norwegian where SJW wings are winning. I'm a Finn, and SDP is still largely managed by the "manage the capitalism" union people who stand in the same line with industrialists on essentially all issues of capitalism. They understand that without successful companies, people don't get to stay employed in good jobs.
Subversion by the SJW-wingers was attempted via the feminist infiltration tactic in the past, when the former head of the party tried to pull this conversion. She was pretty much the opposite of the current leader, who's the life long union leader, she was a school teacher. The industry where the intersectional insanity is largely coming from, poisoning the society. She left the party disgraced, because she basically lost a large chunk of people who support the party because of its pro-union, pro-capitalism management policies, as she tried to roll them back and replace them with SJW slogans. Funnily enough, they appear to have went for PS, our variant of Swedish SD, and the SDP crashed into opposition, showing the party core and mainstream just how awful SJW policies are for the party, while PS got into the government. Which basically showed everyone in the party in a very concrete, in-your-face way where embracing SJWs leads to.
The fight continues however, as these people are not the types to give up trying to subvert various state and political structures to attack their ideological enemies. The "you woman hating, migrant hating racist, sexist..." style attacks keep going within the party to this day. It's a fight for the soul of the party for the lack of better word, which is why I told the initial poster that while these people are just ideological enemies to people on the right wing of politics, they're far worse to those on the moderate left. They're the people who pretend to be a part of moderate left on the surface, while pushing for complete reversal of left wing policies that we built our states on the first place.
Denmark to my understanding is even better off than us. There the immigration issue of sitting on the same landmass as Germany inoculated people against SJW narratives in social democratic circles even more rapidly, as SJW-wing finds it very hard to let go of "not liking mass migrants is racism" arguments. Essentially, it has massive internal problems of its own.
I must say, it's interesting how this is playing down to a tee on the clinical description of cognitive dissonance. The mind actually forgets that it had this argument and lost it, and rejects any reminders of it, instead diverting the discussion into a completely different path.
The problem here is that he signed this freedom on this particular issue away voluntarily to avoid penalties for specific infractions. He's in violation of a contract he signed.
And yes, freedom to speak about specific things in a specific setting can be signed away by a person. That is what NDAs are for example.
>The way you can tell legitimate media from spin is that the legitimate media updates their stories when new information becomes available.
This is the most warped, and frankly disgusting lie I've seen in a long time. The way you can tell legitimate media from spin is that legitimate media:
1. Has more than one independent and verifiable source. 2. Will check such sources to very the story before publishing.
"Issuing corrections after publishing" and "reporting on a single anonymous source" is the realm of yellow press journalism at best, and utter BS disguising itself as journalism at worst. How do I know?
Consider the following story being published:
"Geoffrey.Iandis is a child rapist - anonymous source. Think of the children he raped. This is where he lives."
A few days and a massive scandal later. "This may have not been true according to new information [that was available at the moment of publishing of initial story that we didn't bother to look at]".
Story ends.
This is literally how WaPo handed Covington, which is why they're the main outlet being sued for that particular lie being passed as a legitimate story.
If you think aforementioned story is "responsible journalism", you're either the dumbest person I've met on slashdot in a while, and that includes the APK spamming ACs, or you're a liar with an agenda. Either way, do everyone a favour and go fuck yourself.
What is typically referred to as "middle age" starts when your metabolism starts to slow down to a significant extent, with biology behind the ageing process changing your drive to one seeking stability. This tends to change lifestyle, as people finish settling down and generally become stable. Hence the stereotypical middle aged person that tends to be boring.
For most people, that starts in late 30s, early 40s at the latest. It would take a very strange lifestyle to become a stereotypical middle aged person as late as 50. Perhaps a kind of life that modern feminist would imagine people have. Like most things that particular group believes about other people, that is false. Something they tend to find out when they try to have children around 40, and discover that they are already middle aged, with biology no longer compatible with that phase in life for most people.
Notice how after after my last post, you suddenly concluded that I somehow didn't understand you. Even though I understood you so well, that I literally walked you through the logic process that leads to the conclusion that you are incorrect, step by step. With last step being taken by you yourself, with no prodding on my part whatsoever.
You are suffering from cognitive dissonance in the clinical sense - the conclusion that you're wrong was demonstrated to you in such a direct and unrefutable manner, that your mind shielded itself from the pain of recognising it by creating a hallucination in your mind that I somehow must have misunderstood you.
Various pundits in political and gaming news sphere (of those I follow) generally played around with subscription model to the point where most of the content is free with constant nods to paying patrons on youtube and such. And then they have some kind of a small paywall for extras, with various tiers of payment for more benefits.
The "middle aged men" is the older millenials like myself at this point. The people with highest spending potential in their lifetime right now, because enough of us are on some kind of a career track, and have enough income to start spending, and aren't yet locking everything done to prepare for retirement yet. Nor are only entering work force and have no extra spending potential at all as the youngsters do.
Most of the guys my age who were playing the same sport with me back in student days are still playing. It's our way to stay in shape and maintain social networking/get away from the significant other after getting families. I used to wear nikes for my indoor sports hobby for a long time for example. Funnily enough, I dropped them a few years ago specifically because I couldn't find a pair of black indoor nikes that would fit me. Spent a year searching for a new type of indoor sports shoe that would fit my foot comfortably. Ended up on new mid range pumas. Didn't have anything to do with the ad. Had everything to do with the fact that for some weird reason, they decided to not sell same type of shoe I used for almost a decade in black any more, and that's simply my style.
We're the guys who'll drop 200EUR on a pair indoors sports shoes and not even blink, because we know how much it sucks to get blisters because shoe doesn't fit quite right. And there's quite a lot of marketing toward us. At least toward me that I can see, in everything from sports publications to various sports forums I frequent.
I find it quite amusing personally that some companies decided to market to younger generation instead. Those are the smallest generations in relation to older generations of all time demographic have been recorded in many Western countries. Our birth rates are in the toilet. But it's still a market, and if they want it, it's theirs to have. I'll stick to any company that makes shoes that fit my foot well, have good shock absorber gel, and are black. And a few years ago when I was looking for a pair to replace my last nikes, of the type I wore for a decade because that type fit my foot almost perfectly, none were to be found in black. And so they lost me as a customer to puma.
Please don't mix social democrats in SJW insanity. They're desperately trying to take over social democratic parties in many Scandinavian countries today, and they're more abhorrent to most of us in that camp than they are to you.
To you, they're just ideological opponents. To us, they're people who are trying to subvert our core message of empowering and managing capitalism to fund wide scale social programs available to everyone regardless of their sex and race to its polar opposite: socializing capital and forcibly redistributing the wealth based on sex and racial stereotypes they hold.
Obvious problem here is that you effectively hammered the point down on your own from "numbers matter" to "suffering matters". Which inevitably leads to "suffering of each individual matters". Which means that "even a single person suffering is too much".
Notice how I called exactly what you would do if pressed, but didn't press on it. And you still did it. Of your own volition. I didn't even have to press you on it.
Notice how you just went from "argument against x" to "argument against a small subset of x" in a single post. I suspect that if I had the patience, we could hammer this down to "small subset of small subset of......small subset of x". Where that eventual subset would be far too small to be meaningful on the scale being discussed.
And yet, you chose to defend Vice, a US company. This grasping of straws follows the same principle as I noted above - it's so incredulously unbelievable that it's hilarious that you would even try arguing it this way.
I see. You're not talking about profitability. You're talking about baseline sustainability by someone else after someone else already paid for the relevant R&D. Basically, the intention behind the Indian model.
You should look into Indian model and the massive failure that it is to understand why what you're talking about has been done as an experiment on a market with about 1/6th of planet's population. That experiment failed.
I'm not going to bother with the silly grasping at straws where you continue with incredulously silly narrative even when called on it by several people. The only thing I have to address is the "but if I'm [x] and I'm pissed by [y], they can't be [x]".
This is a common tactic in religious circles to denounce disgraced members of their particular faith. "Terrorist muslims aren't real muslims, even though they literally follow the Quran". etc. It's meaningful only to the faithful protecting his faith from damage caused by recognising just how awful of actions his faith has induced in other people.
It's utterly irrelevant to those outside the faith, as they have no investment in maintaining base tenets of said faith. They simply see faithful parties having a theological disagreement on some limited interpretations, while sharing most of the belief structure. It's why overwhelming majority of islamic terror is done to muslims. The worst enemy is the enemy that shows you the problems with your beliefs while representing them.
I understand that between the Covington and the Smollett, far leftists have nothing left but to desperately try to gaslight people about their involvement in this particular cultural insanity as various aspects of it keep coming out.
But you being desperate does not make you any less incredulously unbelievable. If anything, it makes you so unbelievable, that you cross the realm where it's just plain funny that you would even try.
Chinese IP laws are not extremely lax, they're actually quite tight. China has been the state making the most international patent claims for quite a while.
Problem is not tightness or laxness of these laws. Problem is the selective application of the laws.
I have no problems with holding puritanical opinions on human body. I only have problems with pushing such ideas on people who aren't in any close relationship to one holding such ideas.
My post is about talking about two things at once and accidentally mixing them up. I was referring to the copyright directive from about a decade ago, that resulted in some rather nasty national legislation in most EU member states, far more strict than DMCA.
Slashdot Mirror
Opposite is equally true. While the MAD holds, none of the players you mention have any ability to initiate warfare. Attempting to dislodge MAD by advancing capabilities in relevant fields too far unilaterally leads to war.
I'm guessing you're a Swede, where this process is largely finished, or a Norwegian where SJW wings are winning. I'm a Finn, and SDP is still largely managed by the "manage the capitalism" union people who stand in the same line with industrialists on essentially all issues of capitalism. They understand that without successful companies, people don't get to stay employed in good jobs.
Subversion by the SJW-wingers was attempted via the feminist infiltration tactic in the past, when the former head of the party tried to pull this conversion. She was pretty much the opposite of the current leader, who's the life long union leader, she was a school teacher. The industry where the intersectional insanity is largely coming from, poisoning the society. She left the party disgraced, because she basically lost a large chunk of people who support the party because of its pro-union, pro-capitalism management policies, as she tried to roll them back and replace them with SJW slogans. Funnily enough, they appear to have went for PS, our variant of Swedish SD, and the SDP crashed into opposition, showing the party core and mainstream just how awful SJW policies are for the party, while PS got into the government. Which basically showed everyone in the party in a very concrete, in-your-face way where embracing SJWs leads to.
The fight continues however, as these people are not the types to give up trying to subvert various state and political structures to attack their ideological enemies. The "you woman hating, migrant hating racist, sexist..." style attacks keep going within the party to this day. It's a fight for the soul of the party for the lack of better word, which is why I told the initial poster that while these people are just ideological enemies to people on the right wing of politics, they're far worse to those on the moderate left. They're the people who pretend to be a part of moderate left on the surface, while pushing for complete reversal of left wing policies that we built our states on the first place.
Denmark to my understanding is even better off than us. There the immigration issue of sitting on the same landmass as Germany inoculated people against SJW narratives in social democratic circles even more rapidly, as SJW-wing finds it very hard to let go of "not liking mass migrants is racism" arguments. Essentially, it has massive internal problems of its own.
I must say, it's interesting how this is playing down to a tee on the clinical description of cognitive dissonance. The mind actually forgets that it had this argument and lost it, and rejects any reminders of it, instead diverting the discussion into a completely different path.
Fascinating.
And then, you actually read what I typed and realised that I never made the claim you so triumphantly debunked.
The problem here is that he signed this freedom on this particular issue away voluntarily to avoid penalties for specific infractions. He's in violation of a contract he signed.
And yes, freedom to speak about specific things in a specific setting can be signed away by a person. That is what NDAs are for example.
>The way you can tell legitimate media from spin is that the legitimate media updates their stories when new information becomes available.
This is the most warped, and frankly disgusting lie I've seen in a long time. The way you can tell legitimate media from spin is that legitimate media:
1. Has more than one independent and verifiable source.
2. Will check such sources to very the story before publishing.
"Issuing corrections after publishing" and "reporting on a single anonymous source" is the realm of yellow press journalism at best, and utter BS disguising itself as journalism at worst. How do I know?
Consider the following story being published:
"Geoffrey.Iandis is a child rapist - anonymous source. Think of the children he raped. This is where he lives."
A few days and a massive scandal later. "This may have not been true according to new information [that was available at the moment of publishing of initial story that we didn't bother to look at]".
Story ends.
This is literally how WaPo handed Covington, which is why they're the main outlet being sued for that particular lie being passed as a legitimate story.
If you think aforementioned story is "responsible journalism", you're either the dumbest person I've met on slashdot in a while, and that includes the APK spamming ACs, or you're a liar with an agenda. Either way, do everyone a favour and go fuck yourself.
What is typically referred to as "middle age" starts when your metabolism starts to slow down to a significant extent, with biology behind the ageing process changing your drive to one seeking stability. This tends to change lifestyle, as people finish settling down and generally become stable. Hence the stereotypical middle aged person that tends to be boring.
For most people, that starts in late 30s, early 40s at the latest. It would take a very strange lifestyle to become a stereotypical middle aged person as late as 50. Perhaps a kind of life that modern feminist would imagine people have. Like most things that particular group believes about other people, that is false. Something they tend to find out when they try to have children around 40, and discover that they are already middle aged, with biology no longer compatible with that phase in life for most people.
Notice how after after my last post, you suddenly concluded that I somehow didn't understand you. Even though I understood you so well, that I literally walked you through the logic process that leads to the conclusion that you are incorrect, step by step. With last step being taken by you yourself, with no prodding on my part whatsoever.
You are suffering from cognitive dissonance in the clinical sense - the conclusion that you're wrong was demonstrated to you in such a direct and unrefutable manner, that your mind shielded itself from the pain of recognising it by creating a hallucination in your mind that I somehow must have misunderstood you.
Various pundits in political and gaming news sphere (of those I follow) generally played around with subscription model to the point where most of the content is free with constant nods to paying patrons on youtube and such. And then they have some kind of a small paywall for extras, with various tiers of payment for more benefits.
It's a model that found its backers.
The "middle aged men" is the older millenials like myself at this point. The people with highest spending potential in their lifetime right now, because enough of us are on some kind of a career track, and have enough income to start spending, and aren't yet locking everything done to prepare for retirement yet. Nor are only entering work force and have no extra spending potential at all as the youngsters do.
Most of the guys my age who were playing the same sport with me back in student days are still playing. It's our way to stay in shape and maintain social networking/get away from the significant other after getting families. I used to wear nikes for my indoor sports hobby for a long time for example. Funnily enough, I dropped them a few years ago specifically because I couldn't find a pair of black indoor nikes that would fit me. Spent a year searching for a new type of indoor sports shoe that would fit my foot comfortably. Ended up on new mid range pumas. Didn't have anything to do with the ad. Had everything to do with the fact that for some weird reason, they decided to not sell same type of shoe I used for almost a decade in black any more, and that's simply my style.
We're the guys who'll drop 200EUR on a pair indoors sports shoes and not even blink, because we know how much it sucks to get blisters because shoe doesn't fit quite right. And there's quite a lot of marketing toward us. At least toward me that I can see, in everything from sports publications to various sports forums I frequent.
I find it quite amusing personally that some companies decided to market to younger generation instead. Those are the smallest generations in relation to older generations of all time demographic have been recorded in many Western countries. Our birth rates are in the toilet. But it's still a market, and if they want it, it's theirs to have. I'll stick to any company that makes shoes that fit my foot well, have good shock absorber gel, and are black. And a few years ago when I was looking for a pair to replace my last nikes, of the type I wore for a decade because that type fit my foot almost perfectly, none were to be found in black. And so they lost me as a customer to puma.
Please don't mix social democrats in SJW insanity. They're desperately trying to take over social democratic parties in many Scandinavian countries today, and they're more abhorrent to most of us in that camp than they are to you.
To you, they're just ideological opponents. To us, they're people who are trying to subvert our core message of empowering and managing capitalism to fund wide scale social programs available to everyone regardless of their sex and race to its polar opposite: socializing capital and forcibly redistributing the wealth based on sex and racial stereotypes they hold.
Obvious problem here is that you effectively hammered the point down on your own from "numbers matter" to "suffering matters". Which inevitably leads to "suffering of each individual matters". Which means that "even a single person suffering is too much".
Notice how I called exactly what you would do if pressed, but didn't press on it. And you still did it. Of your own volition. I didn't even have to press you on it.
Notice how you just went from "argument against x" to "argument against a small subset of x" in a single post. I suspect that if I had the patience, we could hammer this down to "small subset of small subset of... ...small subset of x". Where that eventual subset would be far too small to be meaningful on the scale being discussed.
Have you tried reading the original story yet? It literally cites an example of something you're arguing against.
I do love the way you're persistently gaslighting with every post though. At least you're consistent, if utterly awful at it.
And yet, you chose to defend Vice, a US company. This grasping of straws follows the same principle as I noted above - it's so incredulously unbelievable that it's hilarious that you would even try arguing it this way.
I see. You're not talking about profitability. You're talking about baseline sustainability by someone else after someone else already paid for the relevant R&D. Basically, the intention behind the Indian model.
You should look into Indian model and the massive failure that it is to understand why what you're talking about has been done as an experiment on a market with about 1/6th of planet's population. That experiment failed.
I'm not going to bother with the silly grasping at straws where you continue with incredulously silly narrative even when called on it by several people. The only thing I have to address is the "but if I'm [x] and I'm pissed by [y], they can't be [x]".
This is a common tactic in religious circles to denounce disgraced members of their particular faith. "Terrorist muslims aren't real muslims, even though they literally follow the Quran". etc. It's meaningful only to the faithful protecting his faith from damage caused by recognising just how awful of actions his faith has induced in other people.
It's utterly irrelevant to those outside the faith, as they have no investment in maintaining base tenets of said faith. They simply see faithful parties having a theological disagreement on some limited interpretations, while sharing most of the belief structure. It's why overwhelming majority of islamic terror is done to muslims. The worst enemy is the enemy that shows you the problems with your beliefs while representing them.
I understand that between the Covington and the Smollett, far leftists have nothing left but to desperately try to gaslight people about their involvement in this particular cultural insanity as various aspects of it keep coming out.
But you being desperate does not make you any less incredulously unbelievable. If anything, it makes you so unbelievable, that you cross the realm where it's just plain funny that you would even try.
This is utterly idiotic argument, because you're suggesting that "eliminating one customer doesn't mean another customer will show up".
This flies in the face of the most basic understanding of how delivering a service to a customer works.
Chinese IP laws are not extremely lax, they're actually quite tight. China has been the state making the most international patent claims for quite a while.
Problem is not tightness or laxness of these laws. Problem is the selective application of the laws.
I have no problems with holding puritanical opinions on human body. I only have problems with pushing such ideas on people who aren't in any close relationship to one holding such ideas.
My post is about talking about two things at once and accidentally mixing them up. I was referring to the copyright directive from about a decade ago, that resulted in some rather nasty national legislation in most EU member states, far more strict than DMCA.
Apologies, I'm engaged a discussion on GDPR and confused it for a moment.
I meant the old copyright directive from about a decade ago.
Same can be done with G700s if you want. It includes charging ability.
Battery popping is faster and more comfortable imho.