Outdoes them in what sense? Renewable+battery is pretty much unbeatable in that scenario, for cost and suitability (can't be giving reactors to just anyone).
I think it gets a lot of syndication and money from re-runs, because it's just kind of bland crap people put on the background and don't really need to pay attention to. You can just sort of drift in and out of episodes, or if there is nothing on kinda watch it to pass the time.
I see that happening a lot on long haul flights, especially towards the end where people don't want to start a movie.
Take Howard. Especially in the early series he was really creepy. That was his entire character: being a creep. Harassing and stalking women, creeping them out. And it was supposed to be okay because he was a socially awkward nerd or something.
Raj's mental illness was played for cheap laughs. Then there is the whole "Raj being camp" thing. They didn't know what to do with Penny after the first few episodes, and Bernadette quickly got boring too.
Mayim Bialik (Amy) is by far the most talented comedy actor on the show but underused and eclipsed by Sheldon.
Seems like he had mental health issues, probably relating to the ban and loss of income. Given his wealth it seems unlikely that he couldn't afford metal healthcare.
So why didn't he seek out help? We can only speculate but it's often the stigma attached to mental health issues, especially for men.
We could also ask if maybe YouTube and Twitch could offer more support. At the very least require 18 year olds making that kind of money on their services to have a proper manager and maybe offer them a mentor.
"You have people supporting the right of NFL players to kneel during the national anthem, yet hypocritically think it's OK for social media companies to censor certain users."
At least that's morally consistent. They have a moral position, that the football players are in the right and that hate speech on Twitter isn't.
Trump is arguing that the NFL should enforce its moral values, but Twitter should not. Mainly because the NFL agrees with Trump but Twitter does not.
This is a popular tactic for those on the right. If they can't defend someone just pretend they have been labelled Hitler and quickly move on. It's a kind of straw-Hitler.
Twitter has always been about limited speech, just like every other website. Even 4chan bans some topics. Even gab.ai doesn't allow you to say literally anything.
So it's always been the case that they made their own moral and legal judgements on content.
I guess, if people wanna say, âoeYou know, we oughta just have the government start dictating...â By the way, one of the most stunning aspects of the last couple of days is to see conservative politicians, people like Kevin McCarthy and Ted Cruz, they are essentially saying that the government should run private companies, the government should dictate to private companies what theyâ(TM)re doing. Iâ(TM)m sure itâ(TM)s very popular with their base, but doesnâ(TM)t happen to be the right thing.
So apparently he doesn't want the government to be too heavy handed here.
You know how Backpage was essentially busted? They were busted under existing Section 230 law. The reason we had problems is because law enforcement didnâ(TM)t move aggressively enough and quickly enough. And after a while everybody said, âoeOh, we canâ(TM)t do anything about it, letâ(TM)s go pass this really flawed law, SESTA and FOSTA,â
His goal is to avoid over-reaching legislation like SESTA and FOSTA by having more reasonable rules.
In fact if you grep for the "lay out what the consequences" quote you can see that he wants to avoid trying to define morality or "common decency" and instead lay out what sanctions the social media companies are allowed to use (I guess he means bans, demoting in search results etc.) at their own discretion.
The summary is confusing because it makes it look like he is trying to define "common decency", when in fact he is just giving his personal opinion and using it as an example of how he would create the rules on his own imaginary social network.
You had to admit that the opinion that gay people should not be married is extremely hostile to gay people and an equally hostile reaction is hardly surprising. Same with various supremacists, people who judge you by Sharia standards etc.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to respond and criticise, and if people listen to those criticisms and no longer want to provide you with a free platform on their social media site or put you on their blocked list, that's freedom too. If they don't want to debate it with you, that's too bad.
What you are describing is forced, mandatory participation.
Free speech draws the line at explicit inciting of violence, the proverbial cry of âoefireâ in a theatre.
That's the real crux of this debate. Causing a panic that results in physical injury is easy to categorize as irresponsible and illegal. But the kind of vague threats that people like Jones make, the conspiracy theories that result in armed men going to pizza parlours, the sort of harassment that result in doxing and credible threats being made against people...
It's easy to claim that they are just jokes or parodies, but also easy to show that they do people real harm, to which the usual response is something flippant like "grow a pair".
This proposal doesn't seem right either, but it's what we are going to get unless we can move this debate forward.
Didn't Netflix just charge an extra 30% to cover the Apple tax once? I'm sure I remember being advised not to subscribe through the app for that reason.
How do you determine if something is a real call to action? People harassed the families of murdered children after Jones peddled his conspiracy theories, is that enough or do you use some other threshold?
By the way, the court decided that the bakery thing wasn't a freedom of speech issue because no reasonable person would think that the message on the cake was the speech of the baker, but rather the speech of the couple.
The LA Times is geoblocked but from the other link I agree it does tend to look like normal road damage. China doesn't have the kind of strict requirements for vehicles that we have in the West, so you see some pretty dodgy looking trucks with precarious loads. People are careful not to follow too closely behind them.
How did people steal solar panels that were buried under a transparent concrete road surface on a busy highway? And what would they do with them, it's not like they are the kind of panel you could just throw on a roof?
The point is that in most countries the local government can't just build stuff wherever it suits them. There are all sorts of considerations, practical and aesthetic and legal. So once they put solar on the roof of their offices etc. and the price comes down with development and mass production the very large surface area of roads makes them attractive.
How about this, you stop using food as entertainment and find something else. Also, vanity works far better as a reason to lose than health.
If you really believe that people are fat because they use food as "entertainment" then it rather undermines your advice to them. Also, if vanity worked then obesity would be cured by the magazines in the doctor's waiting room. The constant bombardment of images of thin bodies and the promotion of that standard of beauty would have fixed the problem long ago.
Shaming and depression are discredited as weight loss methods. In fact they tend to have the opposite effect. Fortunately medical science knows that and is making progress towards real solutions.
Slashdot Mirror
Outdoes them in what sense? Renewable+battery is pretty much unbeatable in that scenario, for cost and suitability (can't be giving reactors to just anyone).
Contrast with a master of comedy, real audience and no need for pauses while the crew hold up "laugh now" signs.
https://youtu.be/tcliR8kAbzc
I think it gets a lot of syndication and money from re-runs, because it's just kind of bland crap people put on the background and don't really need to pay attention to. You can just sort of drift in and out of episodes, or if there is nothing on kinda watch it to pass the time.
I see that happening a lot on long haul flights, especially towards the end where people don't want to start a movie.
The whole thing was pretty toxic.
Take Howard. Especially in the early series he was really creepy. That was his entire character: being a creep. Harassing and stalking women, creeping them out. And it was supposed to be okay because he was a socially awkward nerd or something.
Raj's mental illness was played for cheap laughs. Then there is the whole "Raj being camp" thing. They didn't know what to do with Penny after the first few episodes, and Bernadette quickly got boring too.
Mayim Bialik (Amy) is by far the most talented comedy actor on the show but underused and eclipsed by Sheldon.
I have no idea how it lasted so long.
What's really sad is that we used to be able to at least talk about this stuff on Slashdot. Now it gets modded down.
They wouldn't assign one, merely require such users to get one.
Maybe he just misspelt "SEC investigation".
Seems like he had mental health issues, probably relating to the ban and loss of income. Given his wealth it seems unlikely that he couldn't afford metal healthcare.
So why didn't he seek out help? We can only speculate but it's often the stigma attached to mental health issues, especially for men.
We could also ask if maybe YouTube and Twitch could offer more support. At the very least require 18 year olds making that kind of money on their services to have a proper manager and maybe offer them a mentor.
Sodium is being replaced by LED now. As well as being me efficient it offers a choice of colour for different needs.
Trump doesn't have any real concept of truth or falsehood.
"You have people supporting the right of NFL players to kneel during the national anthem, yet hypocritically think it's OK for social media companies to censor certain users."
At least that's morally consistent. They have a moral position, that the football players are in the right and that hate speech on Twitter isn't.
Trump is arguing that the NFL should enforce its moral values, but Twitter should not. Mainly because the NFL agrees with Trump but Twitter does not.
"Bush was Hitler"
This is a popular tactic for those on the right. If they can't defend someone just pretend they have been labelled Hitler and quickly move on. It's a kind of straw-Hitler.
You can make fake quotes all you like, but no one in the real world is saying that.
Twitter has always been about limited speech, just like every other website. Even 4chan bans some topics. Even gab.ai doesn't allow you to say literally anything.
So it's always been the case that they made their own moral and legal judgements on content.
So, by that logic, Twitter shouldn't be allowed to "de-platform" him, right?
What does Twitter have to do with free speech? They are a private company.
Thing is I'm reading the transcript of the actual interview and it seems like the summary is misrepresenting him a bit. For example:
I guess, if people wanna say, âoeYou know, we oughta just have the government start dictating...â By the way, one of the most stunning aspects of the last couple of days is to see conservative politicians, people like Kevin McCarthy and Ted Cruz, they are essentially saying that the government should run private companies, the government should dictate to private companies what theyâ(TM)re doing. Iâ(TM)m sure itâ(TM)s very popular with their base, but doesnâ(TM)t happen to be the right thing.
So apparently he doesn't want the government to be too heavy handed here.
You know how Backpage was essentially busted? They were busted under existing Section 230 law. The reason we had problems is because law enforcement didnâ(TM)t move aggressively enough and quickly enough. And after a while everybody said, âoeOh, we canâ(TM)t do anything about it, letâ(TM)s go pass this really flawed law, SESTA and FOSTA,â
His goal is to avoid over-reaching legislation like SESTA and FOSTA by having more reasonable rules.
In fact if you grep for the "lay out what the consequences" quote you can see that he wants to avoid trying to define morality or "common decency" and instead lay out what sanctions the social media companies are allowed to use (I guess he means bans, demoting in search results etc.) at their own discretion.
The summary is confusing because it makes it look like he is trying to define "common decency", when in fact he is just giving his personal opinion and using it as an example of how he would create the rules on his own imaginary social network.
You had to admit that the opinion that gay people should not be married is extremely hostile to gay people and an equally hostile reaction is hardly surprising. Same with various supremacists, people who judge you by Sharia standards etc.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to respond and criticise, and if people listen to those criticisms and no longer want to provide you with a free platform on their social media site or put you on their blocked list, that's freedom too. If they don't want to debate it with you, that's too bad.
What you are describing is forced, mandatory participation.
Free speech draws the line at explicit inciting of violence, the proverbial cry of âoefireâ in a theatre.
That's the real crux of this debate. Causing a panic that results in physical injury is easy to categorize as irresponsible and illegal. But the kind of vague threats that people like Jones make, the conspiracy theories that result in armed men going to pizza parlours, the sort of harassment that result in doxing and credible threats being made against people...
It's easy to claim that they are just jokes or parodies, but also easy to show that they do people real harm, to which the usual response is something flippant like "grow a pair".
This proposal doesn't seem right either, but it's what we are going to get unless we can move this debate forward.
Didn't Netflix just charge an extra 30% to cover the Apple tax once? I'm sure I remember being advised not to subscribe through the app for that reason.
It is, you can take anyone to small claims court here.
How do you determine if something is a real call to action? People harassed the families of murdered children after Jones peddled his conspiracy theories, is that enough or do you use some other threshold?
By the way, the court decided that the bakery thing wasn't a freedom of speech issue because no reasonable person would think that the message on the cake was the speech of the baker, but rather the speech of the couple.
So just to be clear, are you complaining about considering mis-gendering a trans person to be a form of abuse?
The LA Times is geoblocked but from the other link I agree it does tend to look like normal road damage. China doesn't have the kind of strict requirements for vehicles that we have in the West, so you see some pretty dodgy looking trucks with precarious loads. People are careful not to follow too closely behind them.
So yeah, normal for China.
How did people steal solar panels that were buried under a transparent concrete road surface on a busy highway? And what would they do with them, it's not like they are the kind of panel you could just throw on a roof?
The point is that in most countries the local government can't just build stuff wherever it suits them. There are all sorts of considerations, practical and aesthetic and legal. So once they put solar on the roof of their offices etc. and the price comes down with development and mass production the very large surface area of roads makes them attractive.
Got any sources for those bold claims?
Why yes, I do.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...
The NYT has a more readable summary with the key graphs: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...
How about this, you stop using food as entertainment and find something else. Also, vanity works far better as a reason to lose than health.
If you really believe that people are fat because they use food as "entertainment" then it rather undermines your advice to them. Also, if vanity worked then obesity would be cured by the magazines in the doctor's waiting room. The constant bombardment of images of thin bodies and the promotion of that standard of beauty would have fixed the problem long ago.
Shaming and depression are discredited as weight loss methods. In fact they tend to have the opposite effect. Fortunately medical science knows that and is making progress towards real solutions.