I wouldn't mind "paying" for sites in this way, except when I'm running on battery power, and only if it means no ads.
I'd much prefer to pay more directly though. Mining with JS can't be very efficient and will end up wasting a lot of energy. But since no-one has come up with a better way to do microtransactions in the fraction of a cent range it's the best of a bad bunch.
The term "political correctness" is used to silence people exercising their free speech right to criticise. Would you really want to take way people's right to criticise his choice of shirt, is that really the kind of censorship you want?
I really sounds like you want the whole world to be a safe space where people can't be criticised in case it hurts their feelings and causes them to make a tearful apology.
The correct response is to criticise the critics, and in this case they certainly were roundly criticised by people who thought his shirt was fine.
or Google bows to the "everything offends me crowd"
Says a member of the "everything offends me crowd". It actually says in the summary and TFA that the main issue here is that it couldn't be turned off. If there had been an off switch for people who wanted it, or even better make it opt-in, everything would have been fine.
I never saw it, but personally I'd be kind of annoyed if my phone started nagging me to burn calories. If I wanted that I'd install an app for it, I use Google Maps for mapping.
It was all in support of Trump. Trump stood on a platform of blame (the political elite, immigrants, the Chinese etc.) and was supported by the growing alt-right movement. Creating dissent helped Trump, because his campaign was built on those feelings.
Okay, you believe that it's fine, but what's not fine is deliberately trolling people. By all means present your stats and make your case, but no need to go around calling them black supremacists and claiming that they don't care about non-white lives.
The whole point of calling it "all lives matter" instead of "shut up and stop complaining about cops murdering black people" is to trick people. Their movement is not compatible with BLM, they are explicitly opposed to the goals of BLM because they think that black people are more dangerous and it's their own fault when they get shot during a routine traffic stop.
Don't fall for their trick. Citizen's United aren't a coalition of ordinary citizens. People's Choice aren't really the people's choice. National socialism isn't really socialism. Look past the name.
People remember the anti-Trump protests just after he was elected. Along with the lies about the size of his inauguration crowd, they became iconic and the hallmarks of his election victory. They really were exceptional - there is always some dissent when new presidents come in, but the shear scale of those protests and the fact that they dwarfed the inauguration itself will always be remembered.
As for the point, it's not just to change people's minds. It's to demonstrate that the other narrative, in that case Trump's claim to be extremely popular and well liked, is false. It's an expression of their strong feelings on the matter. You might as well say that speech is pointless because it often doesn't change people's minds immediately, but I think most people accept that's now how things works.
black supremacists.... who the hell gets enraged by a slogan of "All lives matter"?
People who understand what it means.
"Black lives matter" is saying that there is a specific problem with black people's lives being valued less than others, e.g. the way some cops have reacted inappropriately with deadly force.
"All lives matter" was is a rebuttal, saying that there is no particularly bad problem with black people being treated differently, and that the cops who kill unarmed black people are justified in doing so. To oppose it does not suggest you don't think that all lives matter, or that you are a black supremacist, it just means you understand why people are saying it, i.e. to undermine BLM.
According to TFA they were not targeting "leftists", just anyone they thought might be divisive. That includes the Texas independence movement, and of course the California succession one (#calexit). And of course we know that they were supporting the Republican campaign at the time.
When you try to tie it to "leftists" it makes me wonder if you are a paid Russian troll trying to seed dissent.
This. I've been using USB-C for a while on Windows 8.1 and it's fine. Everything works as you would expect.
The only issue I had was with MTP for file transfer, but that turned out to be a software issue and the patch last month fixed it. USB-C itself though has been great, even with cheap cables.
The stuff in my body is mostly harmless. For example bananas contain radioactive potassium, but my body regulates the amount and where it is stored so it's fine. Unfortunately it doesn't regulate caesium.
Similarly, to some extent my skin is designed to protect the stuff inside it from solar radiation. There is a limit to its effectiveness though, so I apply sunscreen when necessary.
Common misconception. It's lower than the acceptable background levels in some places, but background levels have little to do with the particles emitted from Fukushima. For example, most radiation can't penetrate the top layer of skin, but caesium particles from Fukushima can easily get inside your body and your organs and sit there slowly irradiating them almost indefinitely.
That's the problem, it's not an acceptably low band. It was well above the government set limit, so the government raised the limit, and it was still above it in some places. It's above internationally recognized limits for clean-up workers' exposure in some parts.
Besides, this argument really just boils down to "it's inconvenient for us, so you should take more risk. We screwed up, our nuclear plant went into meltdown and exploded, but reducing your risk below a certain level is just too expensive for us, and anyway how are you going to know if that cancer you get 20 years later, or that birth defect your grandkids have is out fault?"
I guess it's hard to patch a vulnerability in an open source project without advertising that it exists. In the case of other OS projects with zero-day fixes they kept the patches quieter, but I'm sure people who were paying attention noticed.
There was an old BBC series, made for but not by them, called Ashes to Ashes that I wanted to see. I was on Netflix for a few years, then vanished.
I've been trying to figure out the economics of that. It's dirt cheap to buy on disc, I can't imagine they make much money that way, so why not get a bit of revenue from Netflix viewings too? Is Netflix a really bad deal for them, worse than the physical sales?
If you're concerned AT ALL about "security" or "latency"?
The cloud is the only sane solution to latency.
Either you build a globe spanning content delivery network or you pay someone else to serve your application from their globe spanning content delivery network.
Well, there is one other solution: never grow beyond one office, never get Slashdotted.
You simply cannot guarantee the security of any hardware NOT under direct control.
So you want to run servers out of your office, because you don't trust datacentres? How much are you spending on redundant connectivity, backup power, air conditioning, physical security etc?
CT scans are a poor comparison anyway, because they are a one-off hit. The problem with nuclear accidents and dirty bombs is that the material lingers, and can get inside the body and bypass the layers of skin and flesh that protect organs from radiation.
How do you compare a one-off dose to a much smaller but constant dose being administered directly inside your thyroid? It's very difficult to even prove which effects you suffer years or decades later are as a direct result of the radiation.
The problem is that in the evacuation zone the danger varies greatly from place to place, even within one town or dwelling. The emitted material is not spread evenly over the area.
This creates a difficult problem for anyone wanting to live there. Realistically the only way to handle it is full decontamination, because you can't live your life carrying a dosimeter and checking the soil every time it gets disturbed. But decontamination efforts have proven to be less than effective, with some areas having to undergo multiple passes and very large amounts of waste being generated because it's very hard to filter.
On top of that you have the non-nuclear issues. Everything is decaying after being left unrepaired. It's hard to get insurance evaluations because the legal process required to get the entire contents of your previous dwelling declared a write-off is long and slow and there are hundreds of thousands of other simultaneous claims being made. The insurance companies are busy suing TEPCO as well, and have to rely on TEPCO and the government paying out or it will financially cripple them. And of course, good luck getting new insurance on your newly rebuilt home, or even agreeing on what it is worth now.
And even if you overcome all that, a lot of people are not going back now. They started lives elsewhere. Your former home town might not be a viable community any more.
I think the hostility towards people like Nollet is not that they are seen as "complicit in nuclear power", they just don't understand the reality of the situation in Japan right now. Even if you could magically decontaminate the whole area, a lot of people don't want to go back, can't go back, and just want TEPCO and the government to compensate them so they can get on with their lives.
Fukushima is great example of why the actual amount of radiation is almost irrelevant. Confusion and no way of knowing how bad it might get mandates an evacuation. Lack of solid evidence and knowledge mandates difficult wide area decontamination.
You catch just say "it's fine, go back" because you don't know that for sure.
Trump associates with people who see nuclear war as a viable option. It's survivable, not even that bad really. Nuclear winter doesn't last forever.
But what do they consider acceptable losses? The US nukes NK, China nukes the US, maybe Russia joins in, the US retaliates... Or are they hoping that China won't do anything?
Slashdot Mirror
Ben Shapiro? Do you have a better source, or at least one that backs this up?
How much battery power does it waste?
I wouldn't mind "paying" for sites in this way, except when I'm running on battery power, and only if it means no ads.
I'd much prefer to pay more directly though. Mining with JS can't be very efficient and will end up wasting a lot of energy. But since no-one has come up with a better way to do microtransactions in the fraction of a cent range it's the best of a bad bunch.
The term "political correctness" is used to silence people exercising their free speech right to criticise. Would you really want to take way people's right to criticise his choice of shirt, is that really the kind of censorship you want?
I really sounds like you want the whole world to be a safe space where people can't be criticised in case it hurts their feelings and causes them to make a tearful apology.
The correct response is to criticise the critics, and in this case they certainly were roundly criticised by people who thought his shirt was fine.
or Google bows to the "everything offends me crowd"
Says a member of the "everything offends me crowd". It actually says in the summary and TFA that the main issue here is that it couldn't be turned off. If there had been an off switch for people who wanted it, or even better make it opt-in, everything would have been fine.
I never saw it, but personally I'd be kind of annoyed if my phone started nagging me to burn calories. If I wanted that I'd install an app for it, I use Google Maps for mapping.
It was all in support of Trump. Trump stood on a platform of blame (the political elite, immigrants, the Chinese etc.) and was supported by the growing alt-right movement. Creating dissent helped Trump, because his campaign was built on those feelings.
Okay, you believe that it's fine, but what's not fine is deliberately trolling people. By all means present your stats and make your case, but no need to go around calling them black supremacists and claiming that they don't care about non-white lives.
If you take the message at face value it's no wonder you fall for all these simple tricks.
The whole point of calling it "all lives matter" instead of "shut up and stop complaining about cops murdering black people" is to trick people. Their movement is not compatible with BLM, they are explicitly opposed to the goals of BLM because they think that black people are more dangerous and it's their own fault when they get shot during a routine traffic stop.
Don't fall for their trick. Citizen's United aren't a coalition of ordinary citizens. People's Choice aren't really the people's choice. National socialism isn't really socialism. Look past the name.
People remember the anti-Trump protests just after he was elected. Along with the lies about the size of his inauguration crowd, they became iconic and the hallmarks of his election victory. They really were exceptional - there is always some dissent when new presidents come in, but the shear scale of those protests and the fact that they dwarfed the inauguration itself will always be remembered.
As for the point, it's not just to change people's minds. It's to demonstrate that the other narrative, in that case Trump's claim to be extremely popular and well liked, is false. It's an expression of their strong feelings on the matter. You might as well say that speech is pointless because it often doesn't change people's minds immediately, but I think most people accept that's now how things works.
black supremacists.... who the hell gets enraged by a slogan of "All lives matter"?
People who understand what it means.
"Black lives matter" is saying that there is a specific problem with black people's lives being valued less than others, e.g. the way some cops have reacted inappropriately with deadly force.
"All lives matter" was is a rebuttal, saying that there is no particularly bad problem with black people being treated differently, and that the cops who kill unarmed black people are justified in doing so. To oppose it does not suggest you don't think that all lives matter, or that you are a black supremacist, it just means you understand why people are saying it, i.e. to undermine BLM.
According to TFA they were not targeting "leftists", just anyone they thought might be divisive. That includes the Texas independence movement, and of course the California succession one (#calexit). And of course we know that they were supporting the Republican campaign at the time.
When you try to tie it to "leftists" it makes me wonder if you are a paid Russian troll trying to seed dissent.
This. I've been using USB-C for a while on Windows 8.1 and it's fine. Everything works as you would expect.
The only issue I had was with MTP for file transfer, but that turned out to be a software issue and the patch last month fixed it. USB-C itself though has been great, even with cheap cables.
The stuff in my body is mostly harmless. For example bananas contain radioactive potassium, but my body regulates the amount and where it is stored so it's fine. Unfortunately it doesn't regulate caesium.
Similarly, to some extent my skin is designed to protect the stuff inside it from solar radiation. There is a limit to its effectiveness though, so I apply sunscreen when necessary.
Common misconception. It's lower than the acceptable background levels in some places, but background levels have little to do with the particles emitted from Fukushima. For example, most radiation can't penetrate the top layer of skin, but caesium particles from Fukushima can easily get inside your body and your organs and sit there slowly irradiating them almost indefinitely.
That's the problem, it's not an acceptably low band. It was well above the government set limit, so the government raised the limit, and it was still above it in some places. It's above internationally recognized limits for clean-up workers' exposure in some parts.
Besides, this argument really just boils down to "it's inconvenient for us, so you should take more risk. We screwed up, our nuclear plant went into meltdown and exploded, but reducing your risk below a certain level is just too expensive for us, and anyway how are you going to know if that cancer you get 20 years later, or that birth defect your grandkids have is out fault?"
I guess it's hard to patch a vulnerability in an open source project without advertising that it exists. In the case of other OS projects with zero-day fixes they kept the patches quieter, but I'm sure people who were paying attention noticed.
There was an old BBC series, made for but not by them, called Ashes to Ashes that I wanted to see. I was on Netflix for a few years, then vanished.
I've been trying to figure out the economics of that. It's dirt cheap to buy on disc, I can't imagine they make much money that way, so why not get a bit of revenue from Netflix viewings too? Is Netflix a really bad deal for them, worse than the physical sales?
Maybe you missed the "global" part of "global warming"...
If you're concerned AT ALL about "security" or "latency"?
The cloud is the only sane solution to latency.
Either you build a globe spanning content delivery network or you pay someone else to serve your application from their globe spanning content delivery network.
Well, there is one other solution: never grow beyond one office, never get Slashdotted.
You simply cannot guarantee the security of any hardware NOT under direct control.
So you want to run servers out of your office, because you don't trust datacentres? How much are you spending on redundant connectivity, backup power, air conditioning, physical security etc?
CT scans are a poor comparison anyway, because they are a one-off hit. The problem with nuclear accidents and dirty bombs is that the material lingers, and can get inside the body and bypass the layers of skin and flesh that protect organs from radiation.
How do you compare a one-off dose to a much smaller but constant dose being administered directly inside your thyroid? It's very difficult to even prove which effects you suffer years or decades later are as a direct result of the radiation.
The problem is that in the evacuation zone the danger varies greatly from place to place, even within one town or dwelling. The emitted material is not spread evenly over the area.
This creates a difficult problem for anyone wanting to live there. Realistically the only way to handle it is full decontamination, because you can't live your life carrying a dosimeter and checking the soil every time it gets disturbed. But decontamination efforts have proven to be less than effective, with some areas having to undergo multiple passes and very large amounts of waste being generated because it's very hard to filter.
On top of that you have the non-nuclear issues. Everything is decaying after being left unrepaired. It's hard to get insurance evaluations because the legal process required to get the entire contents of your previous dwelling declared a write-off is long and slow and there are hundreds of thousands of other simultaneous claims being made. The insurance companies are busy suing TEPCO as well, and have to rely on TEPCO and the government paying out or it will financially cripple them. And of course, good luck getting new insurance on your newly rebuilt home, or even agreeing on what it is worth now.
And even if you overcome all that, a lot of people are not going back now. They started lives elsewhere. Your former home town might not be a viable community any more.
I think the hostility towards people like Nollet is not that they are seen as "complicit in nuclear power", they just don't understand the reality of the situation in Japan right now. Even if you could magically decontaminate the whole area, a lot of people don't want to go back, can't go back, and just want TEPCO and the government to compensate them so they can get on with their lives.
Just type "videos" in the search box.
Fukushima is great example of why the actual amount of radiation is almost irrelevant. Confusion and no way of knowing how bad it might get mandates an evacuation. Lack of solid evidence and knowledge mandates difficult wide area decontamination.
You catch just say "it's fine, go back" because you don't know that for sure.
Trump associates with people who see nuclear war as a viable option. It's survivable, not even that bad really. Nuclear winter doesn't last forever.
But what do they consider acceptable losses? The US nukes NK, China nukes the US, maybe Russia joins in, the US retaliates... Or are they hoping that China won't do anything?