It's why I don't use ad blocking software or disable ads on Slashdot.
Most people wouldn't use ad blocking if the advertisers didn't allow malware laden ads be served to their PC's turning them into mindless drones for a botnet. They could fix that problem easily by turning around and vetting ads. Or if the ads weren't so obtrusive and annoying either. Bet we'll see within 3 months that they're reversing this stance, or within a year it shuts down.
This isn't true. It varies depending on the sample size. There are other polls with over 50% identifying as one, and feminism has only gotten more popular lately. I decided to become one only after seeing anti-feminists in action.
No? It's not true? Well I guess that answers that, because otherwise you'd be able to provide proof of that. Of course, when you find out that the number of women and men claiming they're feminists is going down...
No. Nobody "sees" anything with the "sjw" boogeyman because it doesn't exist, and no one outside of certain internet confined neo-reactionary communities ever talks about it. "sjw" is a meaningless buzzword used by immature children who have no desire to be taken seriously or to contribute to productive discourse. It's also the common "slur" used by racists/sexists/MRAs and so on. It basically refers to anyone who doesn't think like it's 1860.
I suppose that explains why sjw's are showing up in popular culture and they're being mocked. Funny that you use the talking points that are in use by many extremist feminist communities on the internet. Feministing for example, uses that terminology often when decrying things that don't fit their world view.
If you don't understand how absurd you're coming across then you're beyond help. It's not that feminism has a man hatred problem (it doesn't). It's that people like you have a problem with hating feminism and using whatever fallacy, strawman, or ad-hominem you can to attempt to smear the entire thing.
Well let's look at the karma shall we? Nope, not coming across as absurd. And feminism does have a man hatred problem, or did you fail to recognize it when Emma Watson said the same thing? Or perhaps you failed to notice it when big name feminists like Jessica Valenti unironically made statements alluding to that. So far, I haven't even used a ad-hom, fallacy, or even a strawman. In fact, I could find everything I wanted to support my statements just by using google.
I assume the objection is a gag. Nobody is this brainless.
SJW's are, so are 3rd wave feminists. Which of course is why you now see popular culture starting to mocking them. And why 82% of women no longer call themselves feminists, rather they're following egalitarianism or something along those lines. They already know that modern feminism has a man-hatred problem, and large numbers of people see a serious problem with SJWs and their public attacks on people, and being perpetually outraged.
Well only 1/3 of Canadians want Trudeau or Mulcair as well. I know it makes a really nice fake talking point and all that but be honest when you're trying to spew political agendas.
Perhaps you should get a grip. Or do you enjoy the idea of people restricting your rights to be able to do something because xyz group is butthurt that someone else is doing it. If you refuse to defend something, then someone will simply come along and take it away from you. A good example: The ITU and their "cyber-violence" report. Which contained woe-as-me damsel-in-distress from actual abusers, and the attempted push to silence people because of hurt feelings.
I don't believe that the courts decide which laws are just, no matter how you stretch that statement. Not only do the courts not make laws, but legality still doesn't equal morality.
Just doesn't have anything to do with law. Ever hear that phrase "justice is blind." Well now you have, and while correct courts don't make laws, courts interpret laws and in turn make things legal or illegal.
Again, two separate claims were made. One claim was that they were breaking the law. This was a stupid claim, because it was not disputed. That was stupid of you. The other claim was that Uber is not providing additional insurance. Uber is in fact providing additional insurance. They are complying with the spirit of that law (if not all of them) if not the letter. You are complaining that what they are doing is unjust, even though they are complying with the spirit of the law which you believe to be moral. That is stupid.
If they're not directly insuring each vehicle, they are indeed breaking the law. Tell me then if you're so sure, where is their copy of the insurance which must be posted inside the vehicle. They're not even complying with the spirit of the law.
A driver is already required to know and understand traffic laws. If your licensing permits someone unfamiliar with the law to get an ordinary driver's license, then your licensing system is broken and it should be fixed, because the ramifications go much deeper than cabs.
I guess that's why you can go right out and drive a bus or transport truck on a regular car license, or a motor cycle right?
Uber is using insurance which doesn't have that prerequisite, so it is stupid to mention that.
In which case, they're not even following the spirit of the law let alone the letter of the law.
That's not a problem for society, that's a problem for the driver. Also, liability for not wearing a seatbelt should always fall on the party not wearing the seatbelt if seatbelts are provided and that person is not a minor, who really should not be held responsible for much of anything given how few rights they have.
Well that's where it's a problem for society and a problem for the driver. And here's that part where specific licenses allow specific things to fall into place. And why something is nulled when the driver falls under that particular exemption in law.
No, it makes you logically fallacious, because you're moving the goalposts. You said Uber wasn't providing insurance, now you're saying Uber isn't providing the specific legally mandated insurance. Make up your fucking mind, and also, the specific legally mandated insurance is a legal and not a moral issue. If they're providing adequate insurance, what's the problem? It is wrong to mandate specific procedures, only requirements should be mandated. If they're providing enough coverage, who cares if it applies to the vehicle, the driver, or the situation?
No actually it doesn't make my argument fallacious, and nor did I move the goal posts. Uber is neither providing the insurance, and nor is it providing the legally mandated insurance. You're doing a very good job of showing how ignorant of even basic insurance law you are though.
The thing is, they're not providing adequate insurance. And here's the part about you continuing to be ignorant. If you don't have the insurance that's mandated by law, you're actually driving the vehicle without insurance. In my area, the fines start at $5k for a first time offence and graduate to higher levels from there. Topping out at $150k for an individual, however for a driver of a car that's using it for a commercial purpose, that starts at $100k, and tops out at $5m per infraction.
All your arguments are based on the idea that all laws are equally valid, so you really don't have a single valid argument anyway, since we know t
No, next article will be: Why men breathing is sexist and rape, courtesy of The Mary Sue. The article after that will be: Why pedophilia is okay, courtesy of Salon(Salon actually did an article on that already).
If you're careful with the services you setup, you can easily run 7, 8 and 10 on 240MB of ram without a problem. It's the feature creep that starts cutting into ram usage.
Since the courts have said so. Unless you're saying that you don't believe in the rule of law.
Uber provides additional insurance while carrying a fare, and insurance premiums are already assessed for mileage which accounts for the additional mileage between fares.
And that isn't legal in many places of the world. The vehicle itself has to have the insurance coverage directly on it. Which isn't happening.
A worthless thing which does none of the things it is claimed to do.
Except it has a higher level of testing, requires the person to know and understand local laws before passing, and it's a prerequisite in many cases for carriage insurance for taxis. And in many places is the requirement to waive liability in the case where a passenger refuses to use a seatbelt and so on.
It's easy to do people for taxes. But there's plenty of unjust fees and taxes.
Really? I guess that explains why uber drivers aren't paying their taxes as required by law. And why uber is refusing to pay taxes like a taxi company.
False. You're a liar.
Well, I suppose that makes you an idiot who doesn't understand law.
Yes, but idiots keep pointing out how illegal Uber is without stopping to think about whether those laws are just.
Oh the laws are just, tell me something what part about requiring carrier insurance(including the minimum required for liability), having a chauffeurs license, and operating with a business license and having the mandated tax requirements for provincial/state and federal are unjust. Uber doesn't want to have any of these on their drivers, that's what the problem is.
If that was satire, you need to work on your delivery. Especially since it didn't offend my delicate sensibilities, rather you offended the intelligence of everyone else.
You sure do make it easy to spot the moral authoritarians who want to police everything because "reasons." Especially things that offend your delicate sensibilities.
FYI that's not him. Go see the 'eggman' fiasco that the media ran with, that's him and a tripfag who posted it for the lulz(and is hated by r9k in general).
This is pretty well known stuff. Here's some reading material for you, the ban on DDT was fear mongering nothing more. The estimate is 50m-500m dead since it was banned, there's no solid figures because no one actually knows solidly how many people have died since the ban. But you can do out the math if you really want since 40% of the worlds population lives in areas where you can contract it.
Meanwhile you've got a bunch of near-explosions whose reactions you're only guessing at constantly happening at the edge of causing damage because you're chasing efficiency.
Yeah that's not chaos and tinkertoys, that's the application of math and science, and the application of programing at the highest level to "make it all work" without causing the engine to disintegrate, rattle itself apart, or through a piston through the block.
I dumped FF the moment they decided to start jamming ads in, and included plugins that I'll never use as part of the feature set. Compared to Palemoon or Waterfox, Firefox has a lot of problems and they seem to be killing themselves.
Straw man. I said in this particular instance it makes sense, just like it makes sense to have segregated bathrooms and locker rooms for men and women, but not for race.
Well we've got the feminists screaming about bathroom segregation already, and how it should be unisex. And there's the starting calls for no-gender locker rooms already, and there are many feminists(anita sarkeesian, jessica valenti, and laurie penny as examples) out there pushing the racial segregation for education. So yeah, guess that's a problem now right?
And the $4500 manufacturing cost will be equally challenging. There are no car foundries or car part vendors that Apple can impose one-sided manufacturing or sourcing agreements with.
With the amount of capitol they have currently they could buy a defunct line and retool it. After the worldwide automarket crash ~6ish years ago, there are a lot of manufacturing plants sitting idle with companies either having already sold them or looking to sell them. That includes the pre-manufacture powertrain and subframe sections.
And Apple would have to contend with the same logistic and legal distribution hurdles that Tesla is facing.
The problem that Tesla is facing in that is one of their own making as well. Tesla decided in the logistic capacity to "make what we'll need" rather than buy or co-sign with an existing distribution network. Why do you think Hino(toyota) has started popping up everywhere and even selling from their competitors floor space.
Slashdot Mirror
It's why I don't use ad blocking software or disable ads on Slashdot.
Most people wouldn't use ad blocking if the advertisers didn't allow malware laden ads be served to their PC's turning them into mindless drones for a botnet. They could fix that problem easily by turning around and vetting ads. Or if the ads weren't so obtrusive and annoying either. Bet we'll see within 3 months that they're reversing this stance, or within a year it shuts down.
These games, some of which are great, will remain incomplete until they feature reserved bike lanes.
Well you're in luck! Cities: Skylines added that in with their first expansion(after dark). Now the only thing that the game is missing is disasters.
This isn't true. It varies depending on the sample size. There are other polls with over 50% identifying as one, and feminism has only gotten more popular lately. I decided to become one only after seeing anti-feminists in action.
No? It's not true? Well I guess that answers that, because otherwise you'd be able to provide proof of that. Of course, when you find out that the number of women and men claiming they're feminists is going down...
No. Nobody "sees" anything with the "sjw" boogeyman because it doesn't exist, and no one outside of certain internet confined neo-reactionary communities ever talks about it. "sjw" is a meaningless buzzword used by immature children who have no desire to be taken seriously or to contribute to productive discourse. It's also the common "slur" used by racists/sexists/MRAs and so on. It basically refers to anyone who doesn't think like it's 1860.
I suppose that explains why sjw's are showing up in popular culture and they're being mocked. Funny that you use the talking points that are in use by many extremist feminist communities on the internet. Feministing for example, uses that terminology often when decrying things that don't fit their world view.
If you don't understand how absurd you're coming across then you're beyond help. It's not that feminism has a man hatred problem (it doesn't). It's that people like you have a problem with hating feminism and using whatever fallacy, strawman, or ad-hominem you can to attempt to smear the entire thing.
Well let's look at the karma shall we? Nope, not coming across as absurd. And feminism does have a man hatred problem, or did you fail to recognize it when Emma Watson said the same thing? Or perhaps you failed to notice it when big name feminists like Jessica Valenti unironically made statements alluding to that. So far, I haven't even used a ad-hom, fallacy, or even a strawman. In fact, I could find everything I wanted to support my statements just by using google.
Hacker news is already sucking on the SJW bottle.
I assume the objection is a gag. Nobody is this brainless.
SJW's are, so are 3rd wave feminists. Which of course is why you now see popular culture starting to mocking them. And why 82% of women no longer call themselves feminists, rather they're following egalitarianism or something along those lines. They already know that modern feminism has a man-hatred problem, and large numbers of people see a serious problem with SJWs and their public attacks on people, and being perpetually outraged.
Well only 1/3 of Canadians want Trudeau or Mulcair as well. I know it makes a really nice fake talking point and all that but be honest when you're trying to spew political agendas.
Perhaps you should get a grip. Or do you enjoy the idea of people restricting your rights to be able to do something because xyz group is butthurt that someone else is doing it. If you refuse to defend something, then someone will simply come along and take it away from you. A good example: The ITU and their "cyber-violence" report. Which contained woe-as-me damsel-in-distress from actual abusers, and the attempted push to silence people because of hurt feelings.
I don't believe that the courts decide which laws are just, no matter how you stretch that statement. Not only do the courts not make laws, but legality still doesn't equal morality.
Just doesn't have anything to do with law. Ever hear that phrase "justice is blind." Well now you have, and while correct courts don't make laws, courts interpret laws and in turn make things legal or illegal.
Again, two separate claims were made. One claim was that they were breaking the law. This was a stupid claim, because it was not disputed. That was stupid of you. The other claim was that Uber is not providing additional insurance. Uber is in fact providing additional insurance. They are complying with the spirit of that law (if not all of them) if not the letter. You are complaining that what they are doing is unjust, even though they are complying with the spirit of the law which you believe to be moral. That is stupid.
If they're not directly insuring each vehicle, they are indeed breaking the law. Tell me then if you're so sure, where is their copy of the insurance which must be posted inside the vehicle. They're not even complying with the spirit of the law.
A driver is already required to know and understand traffic laws. If your licensing permits someone unfamiliar with the law to get an ordinary driver's license, then your licensing system is broken and it should be fixed, because the ramifications go much deeper than cabs.
I guess that's why you can go right out and drive a bus or transport truck on a regular car license, or a motor cycle right?
Uber is using insurance which doesn't have that prerequisite, so it is stupid to mention that.
In which case, they're not even following the spirit of the law let alone the letter of the law.
That's not a problem for society, that's a problem for the driver. Also, liability for not wearing a seatbelt should always fall on the party not wearing the seatbelt if seatbelts are provided and that person is not a minor, who really should not be held responsible for much of anything given how few rights they have.
Well that's where it's a problem for society and a problem for the driver. And here's that part where specific licenses allow specific things to fall into place. And why something is nulled when the driver falls under that particular exemption in law.
No, it makes you logically fallacious, because you're moving the goalposts. You said Uber wasn't providing insurance, now you're saying Uber isn't providing the specific legally mandated insurance. Make up your fucking mind, and also, the specific legally mandated insurance is a legal and not a moral issue. If they're providing adequate insurance, what's the problem? It is wrong to mandate specific procedures, only requirements should be mandated. If they're providing enough coverage, who cares if it applies to the vehicle, the driver, or the situation?
No actually it doesn't make my argument fallacious, and nor did I move the goal posts. Uber is neither providing the insurance, and nor is it providing the legally mandated insurance. You're doing a very good job of showing how ignorant of even basic insurance law you are though.
The thing is, they're not providing adequate insurance. And here's the part about you continuing to be ignorant. If you don't have the insurance that's mandated by law, you're actually driving the vehicle without insurance. In my area, the fines start at $5k for a first time offence and graduate to higher levels from there. Topping out at $150k for an individual, however for a driver of a car that's using it for a commercial purpose, that starts at $100k, and tops out at $5m per infraction.
All your arguments are based on the idea that all laws are equally valid, so you really don't have a single valid argument anyway, since we know t
No, next article will be: Why men breathing is sexist and rape, courtesy of The Mary Sue. The article after that will be: Why pedophilia is okay, courtesy of Salon(Salon actually did an article on that already).
If you're careful with the services you setup, you can easily run 7, 8 and 10 on 240MB of ram without a problem. It's the feature creep that starts cutting into ram usage.
Because you said so, right?
Since the courts have said so. Unless you're saying that you don't believe in the rule of law.
Uber provides additional insurance while carrying a fare, and insurance premiums are already assessed for mileage which accounts for the additional mileage between fares.
And that isn't legal in many places of the world. The vehicle itself has to have the insurance coverage directly on it. Which isn't happening.
A worthless thing which does none of the things it is claimed to do.
Except it has a higher level of testing, requires the person to know and understand local laws before passing, and it's a prerequisite in many cases for carriage insurance for taxis. And in many places is the requirement to waive liability in the case where a passenger refuses to use a seatbelt and so on.
It's easy to do people for taxes. But there's plenty of unjust fees and taxes.
Really? I guess that explains why uber drivers aren't paying their taxes as required by law. And why uber is refusing to pay taxes like a taxi company.
False. You're a liar.
Well, I suppose that makes you an idiot who doesn't understand law.
Yes, but idiots keep pointing out how illegal Uber is without stopping to think about whether those laws are just.
Oh the laws are just, tell me something what part about requiring carrier insurance(including the minimum required for liability), having a chauffeurs license, and operating with a business license and having the mandated tax requirements for provincial/state and federal are unjust. Uber doesn't want to have any of these on their drivers, that's what the problem is.
If that was satire, you need to work on your delivery. Especially since it didn't offend my delicate sensibilities, rather you offended the intelligence of everyone else.
You sure do make it easy to spot the moral authoritarians who want to police everything because "reasons." Especially things that offend your delicate sensibilities.
FYI that's not him. Go see the 'eggman' fiasco that the media ran with, that's him and a tripfag who posted it for the lulz(and is hated by r9k in general).
This is pretty well known stuff. Here's some reading material for you, the ban on DDT was fear mongering nothing more. The estimate is 50m-500m dead since it was banned, there's no solid figures because no one actually knows solidly how many people have died since the ban. But you can do out the math if you really want since 40% of the worlds population lives in areas where you can contract it.
http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF...
http://junkscience.com/2012/03...
http://www.worldwatch.org/node...
Meanwhile you've got a bunch of near-explosions whose reactions you're only guessing at constantly happening at the edge of causing damage because you're chasing efficiency.
Yeah that's not chaos and tinkertoys, that's the application of math and science, and the application of programing at the highest level to "make it all work" without causing the engine to disintegrate, rattle itself apart, or through a piston through the block.
Don't live in a cold country.
That's great, I'll post my paypal and you can deposit 500k so I can change that.
You know what's funny? She was part of the Whitewater investigation.
Just buy a Tesla already
Battery based cars tend to do very poorly in very cold countries.
I thought it was Halliburton that owned the government.
Not a chance especially since THE ILLUMINATI KNOWS!
I dumped FF the moment they decided to start jamming ads in, and included plugins that I'll never use as part of the feature set. Compared to Palemoon or Waterfox, Firefox has a lot of problems and they seem to be killing themselves.
No, that would be 8chan.
I think you mean that would be Sarah Nyberg or perhaps Dan Olson.
Straw man. I said in this particular instance it makes sense, just like it makes sense to have segregated bathrooms and locker rooms for men and women, but not for race.
Well we've got the feminists screaming about bathroom segregation already, and how it should be unisex. And there's the starting calls for no-gender locker rooms already, and there are many feminists(anita sarkeesian, jessica valenti, and laurie penny as examples) out there pushing the racial segregation for education. So yeah, guess that's a problem now right?
And the $4500 manufacturing cost will be equally challenging. There are no car foundries or car part vendors that Apple can impose one-sided manufacturing or sourcing agreements with.
With the amount of capitol they have currently they could buy a defunct line and retool it. After the worldwide automarket crash ~6ish years ago, there are a lot of manufacturing plants sitting idle with companies either having already sold them or looking to sell them. That includes the pre-manufacture powertrain and subframe sections.
And Apple would have to contend with the same logistic and legal distribution hurdles that Tesla is facing.
The problem that Tesla is facing in that is one of their own making as well. Tesla decided in the logistic capacity to "make what we'll need" rather than buy or co-sign with an existing distribution network. Why do you think Hino(toyota) has started popping up everywhere and even selling from their competitors floor space.