True, but switching to uBlock Origin will also cause your browser to use much less RAM and CPU than ABP. Why bother with a resource-hogging ad-blocker if you don't have to?
No problem. If the site doesn't want me viewing the content without looking at the ads, they can put in measures to prevent this. Perhaps they could require me to view a bunch of ads, then take a test (similar to a CAPTCHA, but much longer and more comprehensive) to make sure I actually looked at all the ads and can remember them, before showing me the content. I'm sure that'll work great!
As long as the site willingly shows me the content despite me blocking the ads, they have no leg to stand on. My browser requests some HTML, their site provides it. Their site asks me to load some JavaScript from advertisers, and my browser declines, yet the site happily serves up the content anyway. If they don't like this, they need to change the way their site works. Either use a scheme like the one I outlined above, or just use a paywall. I don't see anyone complaining that paywalled sites have no right to do that; they absolutely do.
Yep, that's one big reason I'm planning to vote for Trump if it comes down to him versus Hillary. She's the most obviously corrupt Presidential candidate I've ever seen in my lifetime. I'd rather vote for Bernie, but the DNC has been railroading him from the beginning. If we have to have a Hitler-esque buffoon as President to avoid the disaster that is the TPP, then so be it. And BTW, I live in a swing state, so my vote actually counts. The Democrats have brought this on themselves.
No, it's not. As long as they ding him for one thing which is obviously false, AND they don't ding other candidates for the exact same thing, they can't be trusted, because they're obviously biased against him and this prevents any kind of comparison (using their data) with their other candidates.
Even if all those other things are correct, with such obvious bias, there's no telling what lies from the other candidates they're ignoring.
Bluetooth and NFC have infinite distances of operation.
That's easily fixed in software. Just measure the response time. You can amplify the signal if you want, but you can't make the signal travel faster than light.
Actually, since I got a car with "advanced keyless entry" (where you can just walk up to the car and press a button), I never lose my keys because they never leave my pocket. With older cars, I'd occasionally lock myself out of my car, so I always kept a spare door key in my wallet to let myself back in, but with this car I don't need it because I never have to take the keys out of my pocket until I get home. (Also, with this system, the car won't lock the car if it detects a keyfob inside the car, so it's almost impossible to lock yourself out.)
In the old days someone actually had to break in, and get a screwdriver into the column. It took some effort and looked suspicious to anyone observing.
And how exactly is this a deterrent? Has there ever been a single incident of some bystander coming to the rescue of someone's car? Of course not.
My new Mazda3 satisfies most of those, and it isn't even a large car.
It does have the $300 key though, but you're not going to avoid that without getting a 10+ year old used car. All cars are like this now. You can't avoid it.
For the rest:
It's a smaller car, but I'm 6'1" and I fit in the back decently well (I have longer legs though, not a tall torso), as long as the person in front doesn't have their seat all the way back.
The automatic climate control has real knobs for temperature setting with detents, and buttons for some functions. The cheaper models have manual climate control with 3 knobs.
The driver's arm rest is padded.
No cellular modem in this car, only Bluetooth for pairing with your phone.
Haven't tried replacing the cabin air filter yet, but it looks fairly simple. It's behind the glove box and it doesn't look like it's that hard to get to, unlike my wife's 2005 Volvo (holy shit what a PITA that was!),
TPMS doesn't use sensors in the tires; it's the cheaper (but easier to deal with) system which uses the ABS wheelspeed sensors to detect an underinflated tire. Not as accurate as the sensor-type systems, but you don't have the annoyances you mention. When you inflate the tires or need to clear a TPMS warning, you just hold down the TPMS button for a few seconds to reset it.
You get 2 fobs with the car, so a 3rd will cost extra (and more than $100 I'm sure). I do believe some people have figured out how to download the Mazda software online (Bittorrent?) and do their own key programming, so you might be able to do that with a used fob from Ebay. I've gotta look into this more.
You can turn the stereo/infotainment on without starting the engine and leave it on for a while in the garage.
Yep, my new Mazda is similar, except that to use this app you have to pay $1000 to have some extra box installed in your car. Obviously, the box has a cellular modem in it, and unlike the Volvo, Mazda doesn't spend money installing it at the factory, which is probably smart because not many Mazda owners are going to bother with this option. Volvos occupy a rather different position in the car market so they probably have a lot more takers.
Honestly, I can't imagine paying a monthly fee for my car at all; I think it's ridiculous. Whether it's for remote-start, or for some crappy overly-compressed satellite radio, I'm simply not willing to spend $10/month or more. But I guess I'm getting to be a dinosaur these days; it seems like most Americans love the idea of renting everything and paying monthly fees for everything.
That would be great for older cars that have the battery under the hood. Better modern cars have them in back where it has better weight balance.
Citation needed. All the new cars I've looked at have batteries under the hood. The last cars I've seen with batteries in weird, inaccessible places were crappy 90s-era American cars, like some Chryslers with them inside the front wheelwell, and some horrible Oldsmobile with the battery under the rear seat.
I think you're redefining the word "corrupt", or maybe using it in a different way than the modern context. Lots of words have completely different meanings now than they did 300+ years ago; you can't go on a word's prior definition, only its modern one.
Right now, "corruption" (esp. in American politics) means money: you're beholden to special interests (because they fund your campaign or otherwise give you money), you sell out your ideals (again, money, and that goes hand-in-hand with special interests usually), you use your office to increase your wealth (like Hillary; again, there's money again, and usually special interests since they have the money to increase your wealth). Being concerned with being re-elected is not corruption: that's plain ol' populism. You're not going to get re-elected if you don't convince the voters that you're their best choice, so this usually means pandering to them somehow. No money needed for this, just lying perhaps.
Trump isn't corrupt in any perceptible way. Sleazy, maybe, but not corrupt. There's no indication he intends to use the office of the Presidency to increase his wealth. It'd be stupid of him to: he could do it far more easily and efficiently by just buying off politicians. He's doing this for ego. Which is no different than many other politicians. Who really believes Hillary is humble and has no ego? As for Trump's funding, last I heard he was getting his funding from private donations, not special interests like Goldman Sachs or any SuperPACs.
No, compromise is not evidence of corruption, that's just stupid. Who cares if some people think that? Some people think they've seen Bigfoot too. Are you going to cite that as some kind of valid data point too? Some people think the Earth is flat. Should we entertain that idea too? Just because "some people think" something doesn't mean that has any bearing on a word's definition. If those people are a majority of the English-using population, sure, but this is not the case here.
Hilary is not average. There are only 4 candidates left now. Bernie and Trump are demonstrably not corrupt. That leaves Cruz and Hillary. She's already far more corrupt than average because half the competition is not corrupt, it's just a matter if she's more corrupt than Cruz or not. I think Cruz is corrupt too, but there's a lot more evidence for her being corrupt (she's been in politics a lot longer after all).
Nope, most Christians are virulently anti-homosexual, and the basis for all that is straight from the Old Testament. Also, there's a passage where Jesus specifically said he didn't come to overturn Mosaic Law.
Well Bernie's promised to put an end to the for-profit prison industry. No one else seems to be campaigning on it.
Actually, Hillary takes a lot of money from the for-profit prison industry in "campaign donations", so we can assume she'll do everything she can to help improve their profitability.
So it's not a matter of the other candidates being neutral on the issue; Hillary is downright pro-private-prisons.
And Republicans are always promoting privatization of government services, so I think it's safe to assume they'd be friends to the private prison corporations too.
There's a big difference with military service (besides the fact that it's voluntary): it actually pays extremely well, at least for lower grades. You're not going to find a job in private industry that pays remotely as well as enlisting in the military, when you have only a high school diploma and no job skills. Heck, they even pay you extra for getting married!
It doesn't work. Many people browse at +1 so they never see AC posts at all; you might as well not post AC because it just won't be seen.
I have a simple solution for this vexing problem: I simply never moderate. The system is bullshit. SoylentNews fixed the problem, easily, ages and ages ago, using Slashdot's own code. You can't moderate in a *thread* you posted in, but you can still moderate and participate in an overall discussion simultaneously. Since every article's discussion can easily have dozens of threads, this more fine-grained approach is far more fair and seems to have completely eliminated all the complaints about this.
As long as the system on this site remains unchanged, any complaints at all about "poor moderation" are invalid, AFAIC. You're reaping what you've sown.
I really don't understand how you can draw that conclusion. NRA supporters all say that they'll be safer if everyone is armed. Why shouldn't they be allowed to prove their allegation?
If they're wrong and it turns into a bloodbath, is that really such a bad thing for America in general?
As long as people are allowed to make allegations like "everyone having guns will make people safer", but are never allowed to prove them, then we have to constantly argue about it. If we let them actually do experiments, then maybe we can settle the argument. And what better place than a GOP convention?
You've failed to specify how this is a problem. NRA supporters all say that personal safety is increased when everyone has a gun, so if they're right, the convention should be perfectly safe with so many people armed there. Who are we to argue with them about what they do in their own convention?
Bernie and Trump aren't corrupt. Trump doesn't need to be, he has plenty of money on his own. And there's no credible evidence that Bernie is corrupt; he doesn't take money from special interests like Goldman Sachs the way Hillary and Cruz do.
Yes, many politicians are indeed corrupt, serially lying manipulators. But what's really sad is that when one pops up who isn't, people rush to vote for the corrupt ones instead.
No, he's right. Politifact is clearly biased towards Hillary. Those ratings are composites of multiple points, but they don't apply their standards equally. The biggest example is how they cite Trump as a "liar" ("pants on fire") because he mis-attributed a popular quote to Gandhi. Before I read that, *I* thought that Gandhi said it. They even admit that much of the population mistakenly believes that Gandhi said it.
The worst part is that Politifact themselves even admit that *all the other candidates* mis-used the exact same quote. However, only Trump gets dinged with it, and has it affect his overall rating. The others all get a free pass.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but switching to uBlock Origin will also cause your browser to use much less RAM and CPU than ABP. Why bother with a resource-hogging ad-blocker if you don't have to?
No problem. If the site doesn't want me viewing the content without looking at the ads, they can put in measures to prevent this. Perhaps they could require me to view a bunch of ads, then take a test (similar to a CAPTCHA, but much longer and more comprehensive) to make sure I actually looked at all the ads and can remember them, before showing me the content. I'm sure that'll work great!
As long as the site willingly shows me the content despite me blocking the ads, they have no leg to stand on. My browser requests some HTML, their site provides it. Their site asks me to load some JavaScript from advertisers, and my browser declines, yet the site happily serves up the content anyway. If they don't like this, they need to change the way their site works. Either use a scheme like the one I outlined above, or just use a paywall. I don't see anyone complaining that paywalled sites have no right to do that; they absolutely do.
Don't feed the trolls.
Yep, that's one big reason I'm planning to vote for Trump if it comes down to him versus Hillary. She's the most obviously corrupt Presidential candidate I've ever seen in my lifetime. I'd rather vote for Bernie, but the DNC has been railroading him from the beginning. If we have to have a Hitler-esque buffoon as President to avoid the disaster that is the TPP, then so be it. And BTW, I live in a swing state, so my vote actually counts. The Democrats have brought this on themselves.
How long do you think it'll take the cops to get there? You think the car thief will still be there?
Face it, with bystanders unwilling to personally intervene (for good reason) and cops a half-hour away, car thieves don't have much to worry about.
No, it's not. As long as they ding him for one thing which is obviously false, AND they don't ding other candidates for the exact same thing, they can't be trusted, because they're obviously biased against him and this prevents any kind of comparison (using their data) with their other candidates.
Even if all those other things are correct, with such obvious bias, there's no telling what lies from the other candidates they're ignoring.
Instead of trusting my neighbours to not steal a package from my front door, I'm trusting the courier to not steal anything from my garage.
You could put a security camera in your garage to deal with this problem.
That means anyone watching can see that it's a thief.
So what? What are they going to do about it?
dropped his phone in a puddle
That's a good reason to buy a waterproof phone like a Galaxy S5 or S7 (not S6 though).
Otherwise, a combination lock would let anyone with knowledge of the combination to enter
How about all those Fords with 5-button keypads on the doors?
Bluetooth and NFC have infinite distances of operation.
That's easily fixed in software. Just measure the response time. You can amplify the signal if you want, but you can't make the signal travel faster than light.
Actually, since I got a car with "advanced keyless entry" (where you can just walk up to the car and press a button), I never lose my keys because they never leave my pocket. With older cars, I'd occasionally lock myself out of my car, so I always kept a spare door key in my wallet to let myself back in, but with this car I don't need it because I never have to take the keys out of my pocket until I get home. (Also, with this system, the car won't lock the car if it detects a keyfob inside the car, so it's almost impossible to lock yourself out.)
In the old days someone actually had to break in, and get a screwdriver into the column. It took some effort and looked suspicious to anyone observing.
And how exactly is this a deterrent? Has there ever been a single incident of some bystander coming to the rescue of someone's car? Of course not.
My new Mazda3 satisfies most of those, and it isn't even a large car.
It does have the $300 key though, but you're not going to avoid that without getting a 10+ year old used car. All cars are like this now. You can't avoid it.
For the rest:
It's a smaller car, but I'm 6'1" and I fit in the back decently well (I have longer legs though, not a tall torso), as long as the person in front doesn't have their seat all the way back.
The automatic climate control has real knobs for temperature setting with detents, and buttons for some functions. The cheaper models have manual climate control with 3 knobs.
The driver's arm rest is padded.
No cellular modem in this car, only Bluetooth for pairing with your phone.
Haven't tried replacing the cabin air filter yet, but it looks fairly simple. It's behind the glove box and it doesn't look like it's that hard to get to, unlike my wife's 2005 Volvo (holy shit what a PITA that was!),
TPMS doesn't use sensors in the tires; it's the cheaper (but easier to deal with) system which uses the ABS wheelspeed sensors to detect an underinflated tire. Not as accurate as the sensor-type systems, but you don't have the annoyances you mention. When you inflate the tires or need to clear a TPMS warning, you just hold down the TPMS button for a few seconds to reset it.
You get 2 fobs with the car, so a 3rd will cost extra (and more than $100 I'm sure). I do believe some people have figured out how to download the Mazda software online (Bittorrent?) and do their own key programming, so you might be able to do that with a used fob from Ebay. I've gotta look into this more.
You can turn the stereo/infotainment on without starting the engine and leave it on for a while in the garage.
Yep, my new Mazda is similar, except that to use this app you have to pay $1000 to have some extra box installed in your car. Obviously, the box has a cellular modem in it, and unlike the Volvo, Mazda doesn't spend money installing it at the factory, which is probably smart because not many Mazda owners are going to bother with this option. Volvos occupy a rather different position in the car market so they probably have a lot more takers.
Honestly, I can't imagine paying a monthly fee for my car at all; I think it's ridiculous. Whether it's for remote-start, or for some crappy overly-compressed satellite radio, I'm simply not willing to spend $10/month or more. But I guess I'm getting to be a dinosaur these days; it seems like most Americans love the idea of renting everything and paying monthly fees for everything.
That would be great for older cars that have the battery under the hood. Better modern cars have them in back where it has better weight balance.
Citation needed. All the new cars I've looked at have batteries under the hood. The last cars I've seen with batteries in weird, inaccessible places were crappy 90s-era American cars, like some Chryslers with them inside the front wheelwell, and some horrible Oldsmobile with the battery under the rear seat.
I think you're redefining the word "corrupt", or maybe using it in a different way than the modern context. Lots of words have completely different meanings now than they did 300+ years ago; you can't go on a word's prior definition, only its modern one.
Right now, "corruption" (esp. in American politics) means money: you're beholden to special interests (because they fund your campaign or otherwise give you money), you sell out your ideals (again, money, and that goes hand-in-hand with special interests usually), you use your office to increase your wealth (like Hillary; again, there's money again, and usually special interests since they have the money to increase your wealth). Being concerned with being re-elected is not corruption: that's plain ol' populism. You're not going to get re-elected if you don't convince the voters that you're their best choice, so this usually means pandering to them somehow. No money needed for this, just lying perhaps.
Trump isn't corrupt in any perceptible way. Sleazy, maybe, but not corrupt. There's no indication he intends to use the office of the Presidency to increase his wealth. It'd be stupid of him to: he could do it far more easily and efficiently by just buying off politicians. He's doing this for ego. Which is no different than many other politicians. Who really believes Hillary is humble and has no ego? As for Trump's funding, last I heard he was getting his funding from private donations, not special interests like Goldman Sachs or any SuperPACs.
No, compromise is not evidence of corruption, that's just stupid. Who cares if some people think that? Some people think they've seen Bigfoot too. Are you going to cite that as some kind of valid data point too? Some people think the Earth is flat. Should we entertain that idea too? Just because "some people think" something doesn't mean that has any bearing on a word's definition. If those people are a majority of the English-using population, sure, but this is not the case here.
Hilary is not average. There are only 4 candidates left now. Bernie and Trump are demonstrably not corrupt. That leaves Cruz and Hillary. She's already far more corrupt than average because half the competition is not corrupt, it's just a matter if she's more corrupt than Cruz or not. I think Cruz is corrupt too, but there's a lot more evidence for her being corrupt (she's been in politics a lot longer after all).
Nope, most Christians are virulently anti-homosexual, and the basis for all that is straight from the Old Testament. Also, there's a passage where Jesus specifically said he didn't come to overturn Mosaic Law.
Well Bernie's promised to put an end to the for-profit prison industry. No one else seems to be campaigning on it.
Actually, Hillary takes a lot of money from the for-profit prison industry in "campaign donations", so we can assume she'll do everything she can to help improve their profitability.
So it's not a matter of the other candidates being neutral on the issue; Hillary is downright pro-private-prisons.
And Republicans are always promoting privatization of government services, so I think it's safe to assume they'd be friends to the private prison corporations too.
There's a big difference with military service (besides the fact that it's voluntary): it actually pays extremely well, at least for lower grades. You're not going to find a job in private industry that pays remotely as well as enlisting in the military, when you have only a high school diploma and no job skills. Heck, they even pay you extra for getting married!
It doesn't work. Many people browse at +1 so they never see AC posts at all; you might as well not post AC because it just won't be seen.
I have a simple solution for this vexing problem: I simply never moderate. The system is bullshit. SoylentNews fixed the problem, easily, ages and ages ago, using Slashdot's own code. You can't moderate in a *thread* you posted in, but you can still moderate and participate in an overall discussion simultaneously. Since every article's discussion can easily have dozens of threads, this more fine-grained approach is far more fair and seems to have completely eliminated all the complaints about this.
As long as the system on this site remains unchanged, any complaints at all about "poor moderation" are invalid, AFAIC. You're reaping what you've sown.
Guns at the convention is a REALLY bad idea.
I really don't understand how you can draw that conclusion. NRA supporters all say that they'll be safer if everyone is armed. Why shouldn't they be allowed to prove their allegation?
If they're wrong and it turns into a bloodbath, is that really such a bad thing for America in general?
As long as people are allowed to make allegations like "everyone having guns will make people safer", but are never allowed to prove them, then we have to constantly argue about it. If we let them actually do experiments, then maybe we can settle the argument. And what better place than a GOP convention?
You've failed to specify how this is a problem. NRA supporters all say that personal safety is increased when everyone has a gun, so if they're right, the convention should be perfectly safe with so many people armed there. Who are we to argue with them about what they do in their own convention?
Bernie and Trump aren't corrupt. Trump doesn't need to be, he has plenty of money on his own. And there's no credible evidence that Bernie is corrupt; he doesn't take money from special interests like Goldman Sachs the way Hillary and Cruz do.
Yes, many politicians are indeed corrupt, serially lying manipulators. But what's really sad is that when one pops up who isn't, people rush to vote for the corrupt ones instead.
No, he's right. Politifact is clearly biased towards Hillary. Those ratings are composites of multiple points, but they don't apply their standards equally. The biggest example is how they cite Trump as a "liar" ("pants on fire") because he mis-attributed a popular quote to Gandhi. Before I read that, *I* thought that Gandhi said it. They even admit that much of the population mistakenly believes that Gandhi said it.
The worst part is that Politifact themselves even admit that *all the other candidates* mis-used the exact same quote. However, only Trump gets dinged with it, and has it affect his overall rating. The others all get a free pass.
*That* is bias.