Hell, look on tv, on shows and commercials....any time there is a goof, or buffoon, it is....yep, almost always a fat white guy.
Hell, for that matter.....when did people of the same race stop marrying or dating each other...? I mean, on so many commercials today, I see mixed race couples.
Oh well...sorry, just a white guy spouting off here....guess it's time to get modded down, because...well, you know....
Because you're a pathetic old idiot? Not once, but twice in your post, you admitted to watching commercials. The only people who actually watch commercials these days are nearly senile old people. I'm always astounded whenever I visit someone's house and they're playing live TV, because the commercials are all advertising stuff like life insurance, funeral insurance, mobility scooters, etc. Why would anyone watch this stuff, unless they're 90 years old and don't know what "the internet" is? Why are you wasting your life watching commercials?
it would be nice if we could have a conversation about what the rules should be for once.
Facebook is a private business, not a government agency. They can make up whatever rules they want, as long as they don't go against actual laws (which, for speech, are almost non-existent in the US).
Usually the comments devolve to "free speech is absolute", which is clearly an unsustainable position for any commercial web site.
That's the whole issue right there. FB doesn't want to turn into 4chan, but if they wanted to have that level of freedom they could. They're also allowed to censor as much as they want; users can either accept it, or leave the site if they don't like it. FB can even make up wacky rules if they want: they could have rules allowing racist anti-black speech but forbidding racist anti-white speech for instance. They're obviously not going to do that, because they don't want that reputation. (Personally, I think they might as well, because AFAICT, Facebook these days is just full of right-wingers and white nationalists.)
but no-one is willing to say how they can deal with these issues.
Anyone who's not a Facebook insider really has no business telling them how to deal with these issues. They can deal with them however they want. For outsiders, you can try to figure out their rules and then criticize them for them, and hopefully publicly refuse to use their service any more.
Why do disabled people *need* to use this particular service? As long as the municipality provides some kind of accessible transportation service, isn't that good enough? Are disabled people entitled to access to every kind of service out there?
For instance, look at rickshaws. In a lot of US cities, you can hire some guy who's peddling a little 3-wheel contraption to take you and your date around the city, perhaps from a far-away parking lot into a trendy urban district where there's no inexpensive (or maybe available) parking. These rickshaws do especially well during special events when the traffic is high and maybe streets are blocked off. There's no way that a rickshaw is wheelchair-accessible. Are you saying this option simply shouldn't exist?
What about horse-drawn carriages? In many cities, you can hire these too. There's obviously no way a wheelchair is getting in one of those. Should these all be illegal?
What about canoes and kayaks? In NYC's Central Park, you can stand in line and rent a canoe by the hour, and paddle around the big lake in the park. I think it's pretty obvious that canoes are not in any way wheelchair-accessible. Should rental canoes and kayaks be banned?
For Uber, remember that Uber is not like a traditional taxi company: it doesn't own any vehicles. The vehicles are owned by the drivers. So how is Uber supposed to make sure that drivers buy special wheelchair-accessible vans? And for them to have completely identical service times, that means that ALL their vehicles have to be this way. Do the existing taxi companies even do this? I don't think so. If you have to wait longer to get a wheelchair van from the taxi company, then they're not meeting this requirement either.
Which "left" are you talking about? There's leftists who hate Uber and Lyft because they're "stealing" from the "hard working taxi drivers", but there's no shortage at all of Millennial liberals who happily use these services because they provide a better and cheaper service than the nasty old cabs. In short, the left isn't united on this issue at all. Further, Travis Kalanick and his cronies at Uber don't seem like a bunch of leftists at all, they seem like Ayn Rand-loving objectivists.
So we should only have businesses which are big corporate chains? We should only have restaurants that are corporate chains like McDonalds and Applebees? Some guy who wants to take over an 100+-year-old building in a commercial historic district and make it into a restaurant shouldn't be allowed to do that?
I'm always astounded when liberals advocate for the elimination of small business and for everything to be run by big corporations.
Here on the east coast, there's a bunch of "old towne" places where there's lots of tiny little restaurants in old buildings, where it'd be simply impossible to make them wheelchair-accessible without tearing down the building, which is probably illegal because these are all historic districts. Georgetown in DC, Old Towne Alexandria, downtown Philly are some examples. And they're all chock-full of liberal Millennials these days too. Is your answer to this to tear down all the historic districts because those old buildings aren't wheelchar-accessible?
This doesn't support your point at all. You said the Clovis people were from France. This says the Solutrean people were from France, and pre-dated the Clovis civilization, and the hypothesis is that the Solutreans got to the new world first.
Yes, but I'm commenting on the "continuing extortion" bit: the extortion isn't going to stop by you shutting down their email. The extortionist doesn't even have a way to stop it.
Yes, but the customer is going to continue to extort them anyway, with or without your help: the malware isn't going to magically disable itself just because the email address is defunct. Now they're just going to send their Bitcoin payments and not get anything in return, and the malware author will receive all these nice Bitcoin payments but not be able to decrypt anyone's files, so it's actually less work for him. Of course, one might argue that when word spreads about the email address being suspended that victims will stop sending payments, but I think that's fancifully naive; the victims aren't going to be paying attention to tech news like that. If these victims were really that clued-in, they would have backups and wouldn't pay the ransom in the first place, and would probably have better security procedures to to avoid getting infected.
A lot of Democrat voters didn't like Hillary either for many of the reasons you state. Go look at the turnout numbers for the '16 election, and also look at how many votes the 3rd-party candidates got this time: they had some record numbers (though still small). Basically, a lot of people on the left refused to vote for Hillary and instead either sat out the election or voted for Stein. Any many of those who did vote for her did so because of major policy differences, while not too enthusiastic about the candidate herself. Those policy differences are pretty important, especially if for instance you're a working-class person who's benefiting from Obamacare subsidies.
I don't think that's really comparable to the previous scenario. In your example, the couple had several different jobs: head cook, lead waitress, general manager, ordering/bills, maybe more. Just being a general manager for a restaurant is a full-time job, without also waitressing and cooking. So here, the way I see it, your friends merely hired out their lower-level duties and stuck with being general managers and bookkeepers. Honestly, I'm not sure what took them so long; I can see how doing all those jobs was "too much work". What was discussed before was some rich heir doing the family business themselves vs. just hiring someone to run it all for them while they go sit on a beach.
In my experience at least, the poor people are more likely to squander their money on stupid but *cheap* crap: junk food from 7-11 (which is way more expensive than the same junk food from the grocery store), chintzy junk from gift shops, cheap alcohol (but still relatively expensive when you buy it from some bar), etc.
They're not as likely to blow their money on expensive crap, because it's just too far out of their budget. Sure, they'll spend $600 on a TV, but that's considered a necessity by most of America and usually lasts a pretty long time if you don't damage it. Over-$100 alternative-medicine BS is usually bought by middle-class idiots who actually have the cash (or rather, credit on their credit cards) to blow on that garbage.
What I don't get is why people *want* to "run" their own business? If it's a stable business model, why not let a professional manage it? Why do you have to be "in charge"? Cash the fucking checks and have an auditor check up on it.
Assuming that you're talking only about people who own a business that's profitable enough to afford that fairly easily (instead of it being a giant hit to their personal income, as it would be in many small businesses), I'm sure it's because many people don't just want to be "idle rich", they want to feel like they've accomplished something. Just look at Trump: as we've been told many times, he could have made more money just sticking his fortune in the S&P500 and letting it grow, rather than trying to run his own businesses. But a lot of people with drive don't want to just sit back and let others do stuff for them, they want to do it themselves. It's kinda like me doing my own oil changes: I could just take it to my local mechanic to do, but I can save some money doing it myself and I'm quite sure I can do it better than they can (and with better materials than they likely use unless I bring them the oil and filter). Now of course, when I say I can do it better, I'm actually right:-) but people like Trump and this daughter you reference are likely of the same mindset, convinced by their egos that they're brilliant people who can do a better job, even though they're wrong, demonstrably wrong.
Also, think of it this way: you (I'm assuming) and I didn't luck out be being born into a rich family where you really could just be a "socialite" or whatever and let other professionals manage your money or business; we had to work to get to where we are. If you're like me, you've been working for years now, and probably with not enough vacation time. For me, the idea of being able to just mostly retire and let someone else deal with the day-to-day drudgework of running my personal highly profitable business, and spending my time vacationing around the world, working on personal projects, etc. sounds *very* appealing. I feel like I've already accomplished as much professionally as I really care to; there's certainly other stuff in my profession I'd be interested in doing, but when I think about how that means having to put up with an open-plan office environment and a regular 40-50 hour week (or worse) and office politics and all the other hassles of corporate employment, I'd rather just sit at home by myself and work on Arduino/RPi projects or something. These people aren't like that; they likely never had any personal projects or significant interests other than their inherited business and they want to prove themselves that way.
I wouldn't say it hurts the US. It shifts things around, sure. Right-to-repair is not an enemy. The question would be why would US corporations be in such bad straights they can't sell repairable products and make money?
It *does* hurt the US, a lot: it hurts the corporations that sell us expensive stuff and profit a lot by making it impossible for us to repair ourselves.
You're probably thinking something like "but it helps the little guy who bought the thing", but that doesn't matter. Little people are unimportant, only the large corporations and their profits are important here.
Are we really that bad off? What walls are we up against?
Yes, we're really that bad off. Our corporate profits could be higher, and we can't afford any threats to the profitability of our largest corporations, especially those that make generous campaign contributions to our esteemed leaders.
My concern is that this "right-to-repair" stuff is not going to provide a "right-to-repair", but eliminate the right to not repair. Such as innovations for devices such as the Surface pro, or other ways to simplify devices and reduce bulk.
Gluing a device together is not "innovation", but regardless, you don't have to worry about this as it sure as hell isn't going to get passed by a Republican Congress or signed into law by a President who says only rich people have a place in his Cabinet.
Funny that it's the conservatives in the flyover states whining about this. Aren't they the ones that vote for the "free market", pro-deregulation Republicans? And they're whining for a "Big Government (tm)" law to regulate these companies so they can repair their junk?
I don't have much sympathy. They should stop buying John Deere junk if they don't like being treated this way.
Maybe, but the Galaxy S5 is from a different era, before Samsung went down the tubes with un-openable crap starting with the S6. The S5 was the last really good Galaxy phone, and it doesn't look like there's anything coming along to replace it.
My honest guess is that Microsoft wants a similar environment with Windows, which will not end well.
I don't think it takes a genius to see that's exactly what MS wants. They envy the success of iOS and Android that way, and it's been pretty obvious how sore they are that they never got far in the mobile space. They had WinCE smartphones for *years* before iPhone came out, remember, but they never got much adoption (esp. outside of corporate markets), and then suddenly iPhone popped onto the scene and everyone and his brother wanted a smartphone. Then they tried several iterations of the "Windows Phone", even buying a whole phone manufacturer (Nokia) and they were all massive flops.
However, why do you think this won't end well for them? I think that under Satya, they've finally realized what strengths they do have, which is the Windows/Office cash cow which can be exploited to no end as there is literally *nothing* they can do which will cause their customers to leave them in those particular markets. They may not be able to push into new markets like mobile phones, but no matter how badly they treat customers using the Windows OS, they simply will not leave, no matter what.
So I honestly don't see how this could go badly for them at all. I think going to Win10S and only allowing customers to use software from the Windows software store will be successful for them. They may lose a tiny number of malcontents, but most will stay and their profits will be much higher since they'll get a cut of every software purchase.
Apple gear is expensive. MS is going for the people too cheap to buy Apple iCrap, and too stupid to realize how much smaller the MS software store is.
Also, Android and iOS are for phones and tablets, not laptops. Of course, MS's crappy Win10S laptop really isn't *that* different from a tablet with a BT keyboard, but still, it is larger and has a real keyboard, and for people who buy into the MS ecosystem (namely Office) it might seem sensible to them.
Oh please, have you tried repairing a modern smartphone? A lot of things in them are quite repairable, if you can get it open. Opening my Galaxy S5 (and previous S4) was easy because the back popped right off, so getting to the internals was pretty simple with a jeweler's screwdriver and my fingernail. There's tons of repair parts available on Ebay for these phones for dirt-cheap prices. Did the USB jack get messed up? No problem, you can get a new board with that for a few dollars and pop it in. Camera go bad? That's more expensive, but still it's easily replaced. And of course the batteries on these phones are trivially replaced.
What we really need is a law banning consumer devices that are glued shut. You may have to replace an entire PCB in these devices, but with aftermarket parts available cheaply, that's really not that bad, and certainly beats replacing the entire device.
These days, that's mostly, but not always B and Republicans, since that's how politics works. And Republicans as a party are pro Big Business. The "Main Street" Republicans with their local businesses and banks mostly got buried decades ago.
Not completely: you're missing out on the local car dealerships which have a huge amount of political power at the local and state levels, and managed to get Tesla banned from some states, with help from Republican politicians. It was crazy hearing Republican politicians on one hand crowing about "free markets", and then bashing Tesla and talking about how important it is to have independent auto dealerships and how awful it is to be able to buy directly from the manufacturer.
Basically, you can look at politicians or parties as either pro-consumer or anti-consumer. Right now, I don't see any that are pro-consumer.
Sorry, but no. You're completely wrong. Right-to-repair, if anything, benefits China, and certainly doesn't hurt it, at least not yet.
China mostly sells us low-priced consumer junk. That's not stuff you want to repair, and if you do, you don't need a special law to make it OK. You're NOT going to take a $30 consumer good to a repair ship to get fixed; the repair bill will be higher than just buying a new one.
The companies that would be "hurt" by a right-to-repair law are companies like John Deere, which sell very expensive computerized machinery where the computerization is locking out the ability to repair. These companies are generally American, perhaps some European. We don't buy $500k farming machines from China. So Deere will be "hurt" as they won't be able to get big profits by requiring you to pay their overpriced technicians to make an on-site service call to do a simple repair. This is bad for Deere, Deere's shareholders and executives, and the dealerships that Deere contracts with.
So if you're pro-US-corporation, or pro-local-dealership, right-to-repair is your enemy.
Right-to-repair isn't going to have any effect on Chinese junk. If anything, it'll increase the sales of Chinese-made aftermarket repair parts (which there's already tons of BTW for cars and appliances). It's good for consumers, it's good for companies that make aftermarket parts, it's good for independent servicepeople, and it's bad for manufacturers and for companies who have exclusive service arrangements with manufacturers.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, look on tv, on shows and commercials....any time there is a goof, or buffoon, it is....yep, almost always a fat white guy.
Hell, for that matter.....when did people of the same race stop marrying or dating each other...? I mean, on so many commercials today, I see mixed race couples.
Oh well...sorry, just a white guy spouting off here....guess it's time to get modded down, because...well, you know....
Because you're a pathetic old idiot? Not once, but twice in your post, you admitted to watching commercials. The only people who actually watch commercials these days are nearly senile old people. I'm always astounded whenever I visit someone's house and they're playing live TV, because the commercials are all advertising stuff like life insurance, funeral insurance, mobility scooters, etc. Why would anyone watch this stuff, unless they're 90 years old and don't know what "the internet" is? Why are you wasting your life watching commercials?
it would be nice if we could have a conversation about what the rules should be for once.
Facebook is a private business, not a government agency. They can make up whatever rules they want, as long as they don't go against actual laws (which, for speech, are almost non-existent in the US).
Usually the comments devolve to "free speech is absolute", which is clearly an unsustainable position for any commercial web site.
That's the whole issue right there. FB doesn't want to turn into 4chan, but if they wanted to have that level of freedom they could. They're also allowed to censor as much as they want; users can either accept it, or leave the site if they don't like it. FB can even make up wacky rules if they want: they could have rules allowing racist anti-black speech but forbidding racist anti-white speech for instance. They're obviously not going to do that, because they don't want that reputation. (Personally, I think they might as well, because AFAICT, Facebook these days is just full of right-wingers and white nationalists.)
but no-one is willing to say how they can deal with these issues.
Anyone who's not a Facebook insider really has no business telling them how to deal with these issues. They can deal with them however they want. For outsiders, you can try to figure out their rules and then criticize them for them, and hopefully publicly refuse to use their service any more.
Why do disabled people *need* to use this particular service? As long as the municipality provides some kind of accessible transportation service, isn't that good enough? Are disabled people entitled to access to every kind of service out there?
For instance, look at rickshaws. In a lot of US cities, you can hire some guy who's peddling a little 3-wheel contraption to take you and your date around the city, perhaps from a far-away parking lot into a trendy urban district where there's no inexpensive (or maybe available) parking. These rickshaws do especially well during special events when the traffic is high and maybe streets are blocked off. There's no way that a rickshaw is wheelchair-accessible. Are you saying this option simply shouldn't exist?
What about horse-drawn carriages? In many cities, you can hire these too. There's obviously no way a wheelchair is getting in one of those. Should these all be illegal?
What about canoes and kayaks? In NYC's Central Park, you can stand in line and rent a canoe by the hour, and paddle around the big lake in the park. I think it's pretty obvious that canoes are not in any way wheelchair-accessible. Should rental canoes and kayaks be banned?
For Uber, remember that Uber is not like a traditional taxi company: it doesn't own any vehicles. The vehicles are owned by the drivers. So how is Uber supposed to make sure that drivers buy special wheelchair-accessible vans? And for them to have completely identical service times, that means that ALL their vehicles have to be this way. Do the existing taxi companies even do this? I don't think so. If you have to wait longer to get a wheelchair van from the taxi company, then they're not meeting this requirement either.
Which "left" are you talking about? There's leftists who hate Uber and Lyft because they're "stealing" from the "hard working taxi drivers", but there's no shortage at all of Millennial liberals who happily use these services because they provide a better and cheaper service than the nasty old cabs. In short, the left isn't united on this issue at all. Further, Travis Kalanick and his cronies at Uber don't seem like a bunch of leftists at all, they seem like Ayn Rand-loving objectivists.
So we should only have businesses which are big corporate chains? We should only have restaurants that are corporate chains like McDonalds and Applebees? Some guy who wants to take over an 100+-year-old building in a commercial historic district and make it into a restaurant shouldn't be allowed to do that?
I'm always astounded when liberals advocate for the elimination of small business and for everything to be run by big corporations.
Here on the east coast, there's a bunch of "old towne" places where there's lots of tiny little restaurants in old buildings, where it'd be simply impossible to make them wheelchair-accessible without tearing down the building, which is probably illegal because these are all historic districts. Georgetown in DC, Old Towne Alexandria, downtown Philly are some examples. And they're all chock-full of liberal Millennials these days too. Is your answer to this to tear down all the historic districts because those old buildings aren't wheelchar-accessible?
This doesn't support your point at all. You said the Clovis people were from France. This says the Solutrean people were from France, and pre-dated the Clovis civilization, and the hypothesis is that the Solutreans got to the new world first.
Yes, but I'm commenting on the "continuing extortion" bit: the extortion isn't going to stop by you shutting down their email. The extortionist doesn't even have a way to stop it.
Yes, but the customer is going to continue to extort them anyway, with or without your help: the malware isn't going to magically disable itself just because the email address is defunct. Now they're just going to send their Bitcoin payments and not get anything in return, and the malware author will receive all these nice Bitcoin payments but not be able to decrypt anyone's files, so it's actually less work for him. Of course, one might argue that when word spreads about the email address being suspended that victims will stop sending payments, but I think that's fancifully naive; the victims aren't going to be paying attention to tech news like that. If these victims were really that clued-in, they would have backups and wouldn't pay the ransom in the first place, and would probably have better security procedures to to avoid getting infected.
A lot of Democrat voters didn't like Hillary either for many of the reasons you state. Go look at the turnout numbers for the '16 election, and also look at how many votes the 3rd-party candidates got this time: they had some record numbers (though still small). Basically, a lot of people on the left refused to vote for Hillary and instead either sat out the election or voted for Stein. Any many of those who did vote for her did so because of major policy differences, while not too enthusiastic about the candidate herself. Those policy differences are pretty important, especially if for instance you're a working-class person who's benefiting from Obamacare subsidies.
Happens all the time because the human interface is well-developed and easy to use and train on.
Windows 8/10's Metro disproves this statement.
I don't think that's really comparable to the previous scenario. In your example, the couple had several different jobs: head cook, lead waitress, general manager, ordering/bills, maybe more. Just being a general manager for a restaurant is a full-time job, without also waitressing and cooking. So here, the way I see it, your friends merely hired out their lower-level duties and stuck with being general managers and bookkeepers. Honestly, I'm not sure what took them so long; I can see how doing all those jobs was "too much work". What was discussed before was some rich heir doing the family business themselves vs. just hiring someone to run it all for them while they go sit on a beach.
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
It's not just Americans though, sadly. In Germany, for instance, homeopathy is extremely popular.
You've got to be kidding.
1) Her stupid company made a claim about NASA, which NASA itself refuted. That alone makes it "news for nerds".
On top of that:
2) She was a lead actress in the Iron Man movies
3) She was the lead actress in the 2005 movie "Proof" where she played a brilliant mathematician.
Honestly, it's extremely disappointing that she's stooped to hawking snake-oil BS after a rather success acting career in some seriously good movies.
In my experience at least, the poor people are more likely to squander their money on stupid but *cheap* crap: junk food from 7-11 (which is way more expensive than the same junk food from the grocery store), chintzy junk from gift shops, cheap alcohol (but still relatively expensive when you buy it from some bar), etc.
They're not as likely to blow their money on expensive crap, because it's just too far out of their budget. Sure, they'll spend $600 on a TV, but that's considered a necessity by most of America and usually lasts a pretty long time if you don't damage it. Over-$100 alternative-medicine BS is usually bought by middle-class idiots who actually have the cash (or rather, credit on their credit cards) to blow on that garbage.
What I don't get is why people *want* to "run" their own business? If it's a stable business model, why not let a professional manage it? Why do you have to be "in charge"? Cash the fucking checks and have an auditor check up on it.
Assuming that you're talking only about people who own a business that's profitable enough to afford that fairly easily (instead of it being a giant hit to their personal income, as it would be in many small businesses), I'm sure it's because many people don't just want to be "idle rich", they want to feel like they've accomplished something. Just look at Trump: as we've been told many times, he could have made more money just sticking his fortune in the S&P500 and letting it grow, rather than trying to run his own businesses. But a lot of people with drive don't want to just sit back and let others do stuff for them, they want to do it themselves. It's kinda like me doing my own oil changes: I could just take it to my local mechanic to do, but I can save some money doing it myself and I'm quite sure I can do it better than they can (and with better materials than they likely use unless I bring them the oil and filter). Now of course, when I say I can do it better, I'm actually right :-) but people like Trump and this daughter you reference are likely of the same mindset, convinced by their egos that they're brilliant people who can do a better job, even though they're wrong, demonstrably wrong.
Also, think of it this way: you (I'm assuming) and I didn't luck out be being born into a rich family where you really could just be a "socialite" or whatever and let other professionals manage your money or business; we had to work to get to where we are. If you're like me, you've been working for years now, and probably with not enough vacation time. For me, the idea of being able to just mostly retire and let someone else deal with the day-to-day drudgework of running my personal highly profitable business, and spending my time vacationing around the world, working on personal projects, etc. sounds *very* appealing. I feel like I've already accomplished as much professionally as I really care to; there's certainly other stuff in my profession I'd be interested in doing, but when I think about how that means having to put up with an open-plan office environment and a regular 40-50 hour week (or worse) and office politics and all the other hassles of corporate employment, I'd rather just sit at home by myself and work on Arduino/RPi projects or something. These people aren't like that; they likely never had any personal projects or significant interests other than their inherited business and they want to prove themselves that way.
I wouldn't say it hurts the US. It shifts things around, sure. Right-to-repair is not an enemy. The question would be why would US corporations be in such bad straights they can't sell repairable products and make money?
It *does* hurt the US, a lot: it hurts the corporations that sell us expensive stuff and profit a lot by making it impossible for us to repair ourselves.
You're probably thinking something like "but it helps the little guy who bought the thing", but that doesn't matter. Little people are unimportant, only the large corporations and their profits are important here.
Are we really that bad off? What walls are we up against?
Yes, we're really that bad off. Our corporate profits could be higher, and we can't afford any threats to the profitability of our largest corporations, especially those that make generous campaign contributions to our esteemed leaders.
My concern is that this "right-to-repair" stuff is not going to provide a "right-to-repair", but eliminate the right to not repair. Such as innovations for devices such as the Surface pro, or other ways to simplify devices and reduce bulk.
Gluing a device together is not "innovation", but regardless, you don't have to worry about this as it sure as hell isn't going to get passed by a Republican Congress or signed into law by a President who says only rich people have a place in his Cabinet.
Funny that it's the conservatives in the flyover states whining about this. Aren't they the ones that vote for the "free market", pro-deregulation Republicans? And they're whining for a "Big Government (tm)" law to regulate these companies so they can repair their junk?
I don't have much sympathy. They should stop buying John Deere junk if they don't like being treated this way.
Maybe, but the Galaxy S5 is from a different era, before Samsung went down the tubes with un-openable crap starting with the S6. The S5 was the last really good Galaxy phone, and it doesn't look like there's anything coming along to replace it.
My honest guess is that Microsoft wants a similar environment with Windows, which will not end well.
I don't think it takes a genius to see that's exactly what MS wants. They envy the success of iOS and Android that way, and it's been pretty obvious how sore they are that they never got far in the mobile space. They had WinCE smartphones for *years* before iPhone came out, remember, but they never got much adoption (esp. outside of corporate markets), and then suddenly iPhone popped onto the scene and everyone and his brother wanted a smartphone. Then they tried several iterations of the "Windows Phone", even buying a whole phone manufacturer (Nokia) and they were all massive flops.
However, why do you think this won't end well for them? I think that under Satya, they've finally realized what strengths they do have, which is the Windows/Office cash cow which can be exploited to no end as there is literally *nothing* they can do which will cause their customers to leave them in those particular markets. They may not be able to push into new markets like mobile phones, but no matter how badly they treat customers using the Windows OS, they simply will not leave, no matter what.
So I honestly don't see how this could go badly for them at all. I think going to Win10S and only allowing customers to use software from the Windows software store will be successful for them. They may lose a tiny number of malcontents, but most will stay and their profits will be much higher since they'll get a cut of every software purchase.
Apple gear is expensive. MS is going for the people too cheap to buy Apple iCrap, and too stupid to realize how much smaller the MS software store is.
Also, Android and iOS are for phones and tablets, not laptops. Of course, MS's crappy Win10S laptop really isn't *that* different from a tablet with a BT keyboard, but still, it is larger and has a real keyboard, and for people who buy into the MS ecosystem (namely Office) it might seem sensible to them.
Oh please, have you tried repairing a modern smartphone? A lot of things in them are quite repairable, if you can get it open. Opening my Galaxy S5 (and previous S4) was easy because the back popped right off, so getting to the internals was pretty simple with a jeweler's screwdriver and my fingernail. There's tons of repair parts available on Ebay for these phones for dirt-cheap prices. Did the USB jack get messed up? No problem, you can get a new board with that for a few dollars and pop it in. Camera go bad? That's more expensive, but still it's easily replaced. And of course the batteries on these phones are trivially replaced.
What we really need is a law banning consumer devices that are glued shut. You may have to replace an entire PCB in these devices, but with aftermarket parts available cheaply, that's really not that bad, and certainly beats replacing the entire device.
These days, that's mostly, but not always B and Republicans, since that's how politics works. And Republicans as a party are pro Big Business. The "Main Street" Republicans with their local businesses and banks mostly got buried decades ago.
Not completely: you're missing out on the local car dealerships which have a huge amount of political power at the local and state levels, and managed to get Tesla banned from some states, with help from Republican politicians. It was crazy hearing Republican politicians on one hand crowing about "free markets", and then bashing Tesla and talking about how important it is to have independent auto dealerships and how awful it is to be able to buy directly from the manufacturer.
Basically, you can look at politicians or parties as either pro-consumer or anti-consumer. Right now, I don't see any that are pro-consumer.
Sorry, but no. You're completely wrong. Right-to-repair, if anything, benefits China, and certainly doesn't hurt it, at least not yet.
China mostly sells us low-priced consumer junk. That's not stuff you want to repair, and if you do, you don't need a special law to make it OK. You're NOT going to take a $30 consumer good to a repair ship to get fixed; the repair bill will be higher than just buying a new one.
The companies that would be "hurt" by a right-to-repair law are companies like John Deere, which sell very expensive computerized machinery where the computerization is locking out the ability to repair. These companies are generally American, perhaps some European. We don't buy $500k farming machines from China. So Deere will be "hurt" as they won't be able to get big profits by requiring you to pay their overpriced technicians to make an on-site service call to do a simple repair. This is bad for Deere, Deere's shareholders and executives, and the dealerships that Deere contracts with.
So if you're pro-US-corporation, or pro-local-dealership, right-to-repair is your enemy.
Right-to-repair isn't going to have any effect on Chinese junk. If anything, it'll increase the sales of Chinese-made aftermarket repair parts (which there's already tons of BTW for cars and appliances). It's good for consumers, it's good for companies that make aftermarket parts, it's good for independent servicepeople, and it's bad for manufacturers and for companies who have exclusive service arrangements with manufacturers.
What on earth do you think that raised capitol was going to be spent on?
Hint - when people raise capitol for a startup
Your sentences don't parse. Why would raising the Capitol building in DC accomplish anything, and how can you "spend" a raised building?
Citation needed. The Clovis people came from Siberia, and are ancestors of most Native Americans.