You will be cared for in your old age by the children of us so-called "breeders". With any luck you'll find compassionate people who actually give a shit about your well being. Or we can just let you sit in your own feces.
Wow, that's an incredibly stupid reply.
First off, the dinks, if they get to the point of not being able to live on their own, will be cared for by professional caregivers, which is preferable to being cared for by relatives. Why should relatives have to stop working and devote their lives to caring for someone in their old age for years, or maybe decades? This is why we have professionals: they specialize in a task, and get a fair wage for it in exchange, along with reasonable working hours.
Why do you think relatives should be obligated to do this? And what are you going to do if your relatives turn out to either not care about your well-being (very common with kids), or to simply not have the capability because they're too busy juggling their own careers and children? Or they live too far away to even visit often, because that's where their job is and you refuse to move near them?
You seem to have some seriously delusional and entitled thinking problems.
while the truth is that people are still largely as they have been for the past 150,000 years?
No, they're really not, at least not in America. Back when I was a kid, I was able to roam around for hours outside by myself at the age of 10 or less. These days, parents can (and have been) arrested for "child neglect" for letting their kids play outside unattended or walk to school.
It's not the same everywhere. In Japan, they actually force kids to learn their way around the neighborhood and to walk to school without parents at very young ages. Not in America; we're too afraid some molester is going to grab them.
There's no way I'd ever want to raise kids in this crazy country.
Well, I think both the baby boomers and the GenX have gone senile
As a younger Xer, I have to agree: the people in my generation are a bunch of idiots. I don't remember them being this way when I was in high school or college; they seemed like pretty reasonable people back then. But now, ~20-25 years later, they've turned into a bunch of religious nuts and extremist morons (and I'm talking about the same people I went to school with, not just people in the same age range).
Are you German? This is an English-language forum. In English, we don't capitalize nouns, except for proper nouns. This may seem odd to you if you're used to German, where all nouns are capitalized, but that's how we do it.
Blaming the Tools for a piss-poor Carpentry job is common these days, but the Carpenter is ultimately responsible.
I'm sorry, but this is complete BS.
In this particular case, there were many reasons these crashes happened other than UI (poor and nonexistent training being a really big one, plus non-usage of AIS). But this stupid saying really irks the hell out of me. If you actually think it makes any sense, then I have a challenge for you:
I want you to take a bunch of 2x4s, all 8 feet long, and cut them into 4-foot pieces. For your tools, I give you a spoon and a fork.
Come back after you've done this simple task and tell me that the carpenter is responsible and shouldn't blame his tools.
If you want partial credit, I'll let you use an orbital sander.
It is the averaging of the input that doesn't make sense. I cannot think of any situation where this "feature" would be of any use.
What if one pilot is trying to fly into the ground? The other pilot countersteering will prevent that. Having a simple "take control" button won't work, because you'd have to have one on each side, since there's no way to know beforehand which pilot is going to go nuts. So averaging the inputs seems to me to make some sense here, to allow counteracting the nutty pilot's commands, and give the rest of the crew enough time to hit him over the head with something.
Your complaints about modern UX are valid, but if you're moving to Linux and using the default desktop environment (GNOME 3), it's not going to be any better, and in fact it'll be worse in many ways.
Commercial software tends to bring in UX designers who have a nasty habit of taking good software and rendering it totally worthless.
Many people do. I would bet that more people want NFL than want the limited services you would want to pay for.
All the cablecos have to do to make up this missing revenue from "pirate" services is to jack up the prices for the sports fans. The sports addicts will pay anything to keep their sports programming.
That IS "professional installation". There's no audacity needed; they're being completely honest. The person drilling big holes through the side of your house is a professional: he does this work every day as a full-time job.
It's just like when you get your car professionally serviced by a mechanic, and he over-torques the oil drain bolt or the wheel nuts, leaving you with an expensive repair bill. These are professionals, and this is what you can expect from professional servicepeople.
The question is: where and when did people ever get the idea that "professional" is synonymous with "high quality"?
Um, that really doesn't make any sense at all. Let me fix that analogy for you.
"You are incapable of making good chocolate chip cookies"
"Why?"
"Because you've been given many opportunities to do so, and instead of actually doing it, you just go to the store and buy the most shitty, nasty cookies they have and then pass those out as if they're good. You've proven you don't even know good cookies from bad ones when you can buy whatever cookies you want, and you've never even attempted to learn how to make cookies on your own, so you've also proven you don't have the desire or discipline to make your own cookies."
Exactly correct, those are the main two arguments. And they both boil down to either getting government involved in religion (which violates the First Amendment), or engaging in oppression (people should be free to do as they please as long as it doesn't materially harm others--"devaluing" traditional marriage can't be proven in any way, and as the type of marriage they're talking about is a religious institution, it's again a 1A violation).
Ok, maybe I'm missing something but I really don't see what that has to do with using Google services and then complaining about the way Google conducts themselves, because it's quite clear he disagrees with me about the "if you don' like it, don't use it" theme I'm advocating.
I'm sorry, your assertion is just plain stupid. MS had an effective monopoly on PC OSes because of compatibility problems: you can't (easily) run Microsoft Office on Linux, for instance, nor many many other very popular programs, many of which are critical for business use (like Photoshop, various engineering packages like CATIA or AutoCad, etc.). This phenomenon is called "lock-in".
There's no lock-in with YouTube. There's no requirement that you host videos on YouTube; just ask the people at XVideos, YouPorn, etc. They had no problem setting up their own sites, There's other non-porn services like Vimeo. And you can always just set up your own server with a Linux box and nginx or apache, or set up an AWS instance, etc. Embedded videos on webpages are not proprietary; the technology is open and not that difficult.
Nationalize it? Then it won't work at all; there's no way they'd be able to continue operating with different people in Congress fighting over how it should be administered, and worse they won't be able to hire competent help to run it, so it'll have to be outsourced to some corporation to run (the US government can't even run its own intranet or email systems, it's outsourced to HPE).
If you work a full week in order to produce content, how is that not a real job?
A real job has a real paycheck. If you can actually make a real living at it, OK, but most YouTube bloggers are just yahoos doing this in their spare time, or worse, have delusions of making it big like a small handful have and forsake actually working at a real career for this pipe dream.
Anyway, I could quit my job now and write some open-source software on github, and I could easily work a full week doing that. If I can't pay the bills doing that, however, it's not a real job, it's a hobby. Just like most YouTube bloggers. There's a remote chance I could turn my github project into a full-time job somehow, but it's a very remote chance.
The problem is, most of the alternatives have either been scammers, or poor re-implementations of YouTube with all the same issues.
Then set up your own service. There are alternatives, even if you think they're not as good. They're not a monopoly.
Sure, Google may "owe them" nothing.. nothing that is beyond not being a dick to your fellow man (aka: don't be evil).
Why shouldn't Google be a dick to their fellow man? They have every right to be evil if they want. There's no law saying you can't be evil. If you think they're being evil, it's your responsibility to stop supporting them.
This sounds a bit conspiracy-theorish, but if it's true, I don't have much sympathy: as you said, it's in their ToS, and it's dumb to trust some faceless company with your private data like that. We got along just fine for decades using word processors on our PCs and saving files locally. And just ask any government what they think of saving classified materials in "the cloud". If you want to keep something private and secret, you don't stick it on the internet somewhere. I'm honestly sick of people choosing the path of greatest convenience and then complaining when it bites them in the ass because the for-profit corporation they're trusting turns out to have different values than they'd like.
Bullshit, it's completely correct. And WTF are you talking about anyway? If you don't like gay marriage, your first line is correct: don't get a gay marriage. No one's forcing you to. Are you trying to claim that other people have some kind of right to dictate what you can and can't do in your personal life?
I never said the other options were as convenient. Freedom usually isn't convenient; just ask any Linux desktop user about their selection of common proprietary applications (Photoshop, etc.). But YouTube is not a monopoly as claimed before: there other other options out there, even if you don't like them as much.
I can't force people to think and act rationally. I wish I could, but I can't. If I had that power, than religion wouldn't exist. If people are going to act in a completely irrational manner, there's nothing I can do about that, other than to point out that Facebook is garbage and not something that anyone *needs*.
It would help if Zuckerberg didn't run around promoting "progressive" politicial views while simultaneously consciously enabling white nationalism, because that's the type of "news" that exists on Facebook. The site is a massive haven for right-wing extremists, and Zuckerberg is a huge hypocrite.
It's not a monopoly. There are other video services out there, such as Vimeo. Or you can just set up your own website and serve your own videos. You don't need YouTube to make video available to people.
As for not having a corporate overlord, how exactly do you think such a thing would keep running? It costs a lot of money to keep a system like that in operation.
It's working out extremely well. These giant corporations are making a killing by convincing rubes that they need to put all their private data in "the cloud", and then the rubes do so, experience a lot of problems (service disruptions, having their stuff "flagged" for ToS violations, etc.), and then they whine and complain but they refuse to stop using the cloud services.
I'm guessing his point in quoting all that is to show that, legally, when you upload your data to Google Drive, it's now *theirs*, and they can do what they want with it. If that means searching through it for stuff they don't like and then flagging it for violations, that's their right. If you don't like that, don't use it.
Slashdot Mirror
You will be cared for in your old age by the children of us so-called "breeders". With any luck you'll find compassionate people who actually give a shit about your well being. Or we can just let you sit in your own feces.
Wow, that's an incredibly stupid reply.
First off, the dinks, if they get to the point of not being able to live on their own, will be cared for by professional caregivers, which is preferable to being cared for by relatives. Why should relatives have to stop working and devote their lives to caring for someone in their old age for years, or maybe decades? This is why we have professionals: they specialize in a task, and get a fair wage for it in exchange, along with reasonable working hours.
Why do you think relatives should be obligated to do this? And what are you going to do if your relatives turn out to either not care about your well-being (very common with kids), or to simply not have the capability because they're too busy juggling their own careers and children? Or they live too far away to even visit often, because that's where their job is and you refuse to move near them?
You seem to have some seriously delusional and entitled thinking problems.
while the truth is that people are still largely as they have been for the past 150,000 years?
No, they're really not, at least not in America. Back when I was a kid, I was able to roam around for hours outside by myself at the age of 10 or less. These days, parents can (and have been) arrested for "child neglect" for letting their kids play outside unattended or walk to school.
It's not the same everywhere. In Japan, they actually force kids to learn their way around the neighborhood and to walk to school without parents at very young ages. Not in America; we're too afraid some molester is going to grab them.
There's no way I'd ever want to raise kids in this crazy country.
Well, I think both the baby boomers and the GenX have gone senile
As a younger Xer, I have to agree: the people in my generation are a bunch of idiots. I don't remember them being this way when I was in high school or college; they seemed like pretty reasonable people back then. But now, ~20-25 years later, they've turned into a bunch of religious nuts and extremist morons (and I'm talking about the same people I went to school with, not just people in the same age range).
Are you German? This is an English-language forum. In English, we don't capitalize nouns, except for proper nouns. This may seem odd to you if you're used to German, where all nouns are capitalized, but that's how we do it.
Blaming the Tools for a piss-poor Carpentry job is common these days, but the Carpenter is ultimately responsible.
I'm sorry, but this is complete BS.
In this particular case, there were many reasons these crashes happened other than UI (poor and nonexistent training being a really big one, plus non-usage of AIS). But this stupid saying really irks the hell out of me. If you actually think it makes any sense, then I have a challenge for you:
I want you to take a bunch of 2x4s, all 8 feet long, and cut them into 4-foot pieces. For your tools, I give you a spoon and a fork.
Come back after you've done this simple task and tell me that the carpenter is responsible and shouldn't blame his tools.
If you want partial credit, I'll let you use an orbital sander.
It is the averaging of the input that doesn't make sense. I cannot think of any situation where this "feature" would be of any use.
What if one pilot is trying to fly into the ground? The other pilot countersteering will prevent that. Having a simple "take control" button won't work, because you'd have to have one on each side, since there's no way to know beforehand which pilot is going to go nuts. So averaging the inputs seems to me to make some sense here, to allow counteracting the nutty pilot's commands, and give the rest of the crew enough time to hit him over the head with something.
Your complaints about modern UX are valid, but if you're moving to Linux and using the default desktop environment (GNOME 3), it's not going to be any better, and in fact it'll be worse in many ways.
Commercial software tends to bring in UX designers who have a nasty habit of taking good software and rendering it totally worthless.
The GNOME project epitomizes this.
Many people do. I would bet that more people want NFL than want the limited services you would want to pay for.
All the cablecos have to do to make up this missing revenue from "pirate" services is to jack up the prices for the sports fans. The sports addicts will pay anything to keep their sports programming.
Exactly. People who don't even own TVs or watch TV programming at all are considered "pirates" by these companies.
Maybe, but there's absolutely nothing stopping the cablecos from offering their own, stripped-down $10/month streaming services.
The "pirates" are just taking advantage of an unserviced market.
That IS "professional installation". There's no audacity needed; they're being completely honest. The person drilling big holes through the side of your house is a professional: he does this work every day as a full-time job.
It's just like when you get your car professionally serviced by a mechanic, and he over-torques the oil drain bolt or the wheel nuts, leaving you with an expensive repair bill. These are professionals, and this is what you can expect from professional servicepeople.
The question is: where and when did people ever get the idea that "professional" is synonymous with "high quality"?
Um, that really doesn't make any sense at all. Let me fix that analogy for you.
"You are incapable of making good chocolate chip cookies"
"Why?"
"Because you've been given many opportunities to do so, and instead of actually doing it, you just go to the store and buy the most shitty, nasty cookies they have and then pass those out as if they're good. You've proven you don't even know good cookies from bad ones when you can buy whatever cookies you want, and you've never even attempted to learn how to make cookies on your own, so you've also proven you don't have the desire or discipline to make your own cookies."
Exactly correct, those are the main two arguments. And they both boil down to either getting government involved in religion (which violates the First Amendment), or engaging in oppression (people should be free to do as they please as long as it doesn't materially harm others--"devaluing" traditional marriage can't be proven in any way, and as the type of marriage they're talking about is a religious institution, it's again a 1A violation).
Ok, maybe I'm missing something but I really don't see what that has to do with using Google services and then complaining about the way Google conducts themselves, because it's quite clear he disagrees with me about the "if you don' like it, don't use it" theme I'm advocating.
I'm sorry, your assertion is just plain stupid. MS had an effective monopoly on PC OSes because of compatibility problems: you can't (easily) run Microsoft Office on Linux, for instance, nor many many other very popular programs, many of which are critical for business use (like Photoshop, various engineering packages like CATIA or AutoCad, etc.). This phenomenon is called "lock-in".
There's no lock-in with YouTube. There's no requirement that you host videos on YouTube; just ask the people at XVideos, YouPorn, etc. They had no problem setting up their own sites, There's other non-porn services like Vimeo. And you can always just set up your own server with a Linux box and nginx or apache, or set up an AWS instance, etc. Embedded videos on webpages are not proprietary; the technology is open and not that difficult.
Nationalize it? Then it won't work at all; there's no way they'd be able to continue operating with different people in Congress fighting over how it should be administered, and worse they won't be able to hire competent help to run it, so it'll have to be outsourced to some corporation to run (the US government can't even run its own intranet or email systems, it's outsourced to HPE).
If you work a full week in order to produce content, how is that not a real job?
A real job has a real paycheck. If you can actually make a real living at it, OK, but most YouTube bloggers are just yahoos doing this in their spare time, or worse, have delusions of making it big like a small handful have and forsake actually working at a real career for this pipe dream.
Anyway, I could quit my job now and write some open-source software on github, and I could easily work a full week doing that. If I can't pay the bills doing that, however, it's not a real job, it's a hobby. Just like most YouTube bloggers. There's a remote chance I could turn my github project into a full-time job somehow, but it's a very remote chance.
The problem is, most of the alternatives have either been scammers, or poor re-implementations of YouTube with all the same issues.
Then set up your own service. There are alternatives, even if you think they're not as good. They're not a monopoly.
Sure, Google may "owe them" nothing .. nothing that is beyond not being a dick to your fellow man (aka: don't be evil).
Why shouldn't Google be a dick to their fellow man? They have every right to be evil if they want. There's no law saying you can't be evil. If you think they're being evil, it's your responsibility to stop supporting them.
This sounds a bit conspiracy-theorish, but if it's true, I don't have much sympathy: as you said, it's in their ToS, and it's dumb to trust some faceless company with your private data like that. We got along just fine for decades using word processors on our PCs and saving files locally. And just ask any government what they think of saving classified materials in "the cloud". If you want to keep something private and secret, you don't stick it on the internet somewhere. I'm honestly sick of people choosing the path of greatest convenience and then complaining when it bites them in the ass because the for-profit corporation they're trusting turns out to have different values than they'd like.
Bullshit, it's completely correct. And WTF are you talking about anyway? If you don't like gay marriage, your first line is correct: don't get a gay marriage. No one's forcing you to. Are you trying to claim that other people have some kind of right to dictate what you can and can't do in your personal life?
I never said the other options were as convenient. Freedom usually isn't convenient; just ask any Linux desktop user about their selection of common proprietary applications (Photoshop, etc.). But YouTube is not a monopoly as claimed before: there other other options out there, even if you don't like them as much.
I can't force people to think and act rationally. I wish I could, but I can't. If I had that power, than religion wouldn't exist. If people are going to act in a completely irrational manner, there's nothing I can do about that, other than to point out that Facebook is garbage and not something that anyone *needs*.
It would help if Zuckerberg didn't run around promoting "progressive" politicial views while simultaneously consciously enabling white nationalism, because that's the type of "news" that exists on Facebook. The site is a massive haven for right-wing extremists, and Zuckerberg is a huge hypocrite.
It's not a monopoly. There are other video services out there, such as Vimeo. Or you can just set up your own website and serve your own videos. You don't need YouTube to make video available to people.
As for not having a corporate overlord, how exactly do you think such a thing would keep running? It costs a lot of money to keep a system like that in operation.
No one "needs" to use Facebook. It's purely a platform for entertainment.
It's working out extremely well. These giant corporations are making a killing by convincing rubes that they need to put all their private data in "the cloud", and then the rubes do so, experience a lot of problems (service disruptions, having their stuff "flagged" for ToS violations, etc.), and then they whine and complain but they refuse to stop using the cloud services.
I'm guessing his point in quoting all that is to show that, legally, when you upload your data to Google Drive, it's now *theirs*, and they can do what they want with it. If that means searching through it for stuff they don't like and then flagging it for violations, that's their right. If you don't like that, don't use it.