Project Fi sucks; it's a Google service, and it only uses Google's own Nexus and Pixel phones. I'm sorry, a phone service that only lets you use one of a grand total of 3 phones is not a very good option unless you're a giant Google fan. You really should point out this fact about them any time you recommend them, as it's a huge caveat.
Republic Wireless is similar, though not quite as bad. They have a very limited selection of phones they'll work with, generally very new and expensive ones. If I wanted to spend $700 on a brand-new phone, instead of using a perfectly good 2-year-old model that I can get for a tiny fraction of that price, and I didn't mind buying another $700 phone in a year or two (since these companies' selection is likely to change), I probably wouldn't be that worried about saving money on my phone plan.
Um, aren't the two the same thing? To use D&D terminology, most "evil" people aren't chaotic evil, people who gleefully do sadistic horrible things in order to cause suffering for others. Most of them are the lawful-evil or neutral-evil types. These days, we call them "sociopaths" usually: they're people who have little or no conscience, and only work for their own benefit and self-interest, not anyone else's. "Self-serving" sounds like a pretty polite way to describe them. The only people who would fit the "chaotic-evil" description are true psychotics.
From what I've seen of Trump, I don't think he's a psychotic, I think he's mostly self-serving though. Notice how some of his actions are directly benefiting his businesses. But that's not unusual for highly corrupt politicians. Hillary seemed to be just the same, just less obvious about it, and not in league with such horrible people (e.g. Bannon), and not likely to pick such horrible cabinet members who'll truly harm the country in a significant way (e.g. DeVos, Sessions). But I do think Hillary was (and still is) evil. But at least she would have done some somewhat useful stuff in order to appease her base and to get her place in the history books and get re-elected. I think Trump is doing the same now, but his base is very different and the policies they want are far more destructive.
You're a fucking moron, and it's proven by your assertion that there's only two political parties. Funny that you talk about "basic stupidity" and you can't even figure that out.
Wrong. You hit it in #1: by assuming "you generally only have two options", and voting accordingly, you're guaranteeing a bad candidate gets elected, so it's really your fault and you're a hypocrite for complaining about the person you voted for.
As for #4 and #5, I don't think this is what we're talking about here. We're really talking about people voting for a candidate based on either #1, or some dumb idea of what they think the candidate is going to do (see the AC responder who's a conservative and then complains about the GOP going on a spending spree) and then gets mad when the candidate does what was blindingly obvious to everyone who wasn't a blind-faith believer in that party and its obviously false rhetoric ("we believe in small government!!") when there's decades of history proving that that party does something entirely different when in power.
Thus many conservatives complained when the neo-cons went on a massive spending spree when they had both houses of congress in the early 2000's. That was not what we had voted for and so we complained, and pulled our support leading to the Democrats taking over.
Oh bullshit. It *IS* what you had voted for. You were just too stupid to recognize it. It's always been plainly obvious that GOP politicians will go on a spending spree whenever they're in power. So again, you prove my point: you have no right (I don't mean a legal right) to criticize the people you elected: it just proves that you're a moron for electing them.
The only people who don't have credibility to complain are those who can't be bothered to vote.
Wrong. Anyone who didn't vote for the winning candidate has every right to complain. Obviously, if you didn't vote for the winner, you're not getting what you were promised, and are not hypocritical in pointing out how the winner is doing a bad job. Basically, you can say "I told you so" to all the idiots who voted for the winner.
If you'd pick a better candidate in the first place, you wouldn't feel the need to expend so much energy in "holding them accountable".
The Trump people are doing the right thing from their perspective: they're covering for him because it keeps them from looking like idiots for voting for him. What does that mean for you?
I'm not talking about any candidate in particular, I'm speaking abstractly. Fill in the blank with any candidate you want. I'm also not talking about legal rights here; you're reading too much into my earlier comment.
Just like the other poster said: if you complain about the person you voted for, and then you go and re-elect him, you're a moron and a whiner, and your criticism is useless.
The First Amendment fails to keep you from being a hypocrite and an idiot though.
If you didn't think the candidate would be very good (and apparently they're so bad you're out there complaining about him), then why did you vote for him?
I see a good way of cleaning up the TSA here. Send military people, fully armed, on commercial flights, carrying classified information, with orders to protect--at all costs--this material from anyone without clearing accessing it. Anyone who attempts to take the material can be shot on sight.
AFAIC, you really have little right to criticize the government if you voted for it, meaning you voted for the people you're criticizing. Doing so just makes you a hypocrite.
I wonder if you'd do better on the west coast, perhaps in the pacific northwest. I'm also on the east coast, in the DC area, and I have to agree about the vegans/vegetarians and social justice activists. I hear it's not like that in the PacNW. I think they're probably more into environmentalism, which is cool with me. My new gf and I are planning to move there eventually; we were even talking about this on the 1st or 2nd date.
You can't compare German Unions to the US because laws for how Unions operate in the two countries are night and day in difference. You think a German Union can protect a worker from being fired in Germany if he's caught shooting up on the assembly line? Think again.
Ok, but why does that difference exist? Why are the laws so messed up in the US, and so effective in Germany?
No, we are not a third world country
Well 3rd-world countries are generally known for having poor rule of law and a lot of corruption (so that the law is not effective). That seems to be exactly what you describe in the difference between Germany and the US with regard to unions.
I'm hoping the new administration can reverse course on a long run of progressivism which has corrupted the US
Wow, that's some serious delusion there. The new administration is composed of a bunch of billionaire kleptocrats; if you thought we had corruption problems before, it's going to be 100x worse after they're done. It's just that the groups that'll benefit from the corruption will be different: unions won't be benefiting any more, but instead the prosperity gospel megachurches with their millionaire preachers will be making out like bandits, setting up BS "schools" and getting federal money for them, as one example.
So why are Japanese-made cars better than Mexican, Thailand, or American-made cars by the same companies? Sorry if it offends you, but culture exists, and workers are not robots; people are different in different places. And why are American companies *still* unable to make things as good as German or Japanese companies? They've had at least a half-century to figure out that quality control thing. That's again a product of culture: American culture doesn't value doing a good job, it just values making money as fast as possible, and short-term results.
American culture does value risk-taking and entrepreneurialism a lot more (goes back to that short-term results thing), so we have things like Google and Uber, but we really suck at making high-quality, reliable products in mass quantities, and also doing really good engineering work to come up with the best designs (look at how lousy our software is).
For your Detroit and Flint, I can point to Germany where they have very strong unions and build good products and the companies are quite successful. Of course, you could blame this on "American unions", which is valid. Why the unions of America are *so* bad these days, I really don't know; my guess is that our country simply has a big culture of corruption which we refuse to admit. We're really more corrupt than Mexico, and at least as bad as crappy little Central American countries, we just refuse to believe it. Basically, culturally speaking, we're a third-world country that won the lottery.
That's hard to say. On one hand, yes, they are smarter (but in an evil way) about keeping outsiders out of their corrupt party. On the other hand, they're stupider because it was plainly obvious that Hillary was horribly unpopular and in serious danger of losing to Trump, which she did, and the whole way her campaign was conducted revealed deep, deep stupidity and tone-deafness about what the voters want and how to get voters to show up to vote (remember, the Dems court the under-30 vote, and that crowd is notorious for not showing up to vote if they're not enthusiastic about someone).
The problem with Republic Wireless is that you're locked into using their phones or an extremely limited number of others; you can't just bring any device like you can with other MVNOs.
Exactly; if there's no entertainment at the place, then I'm less likely to want to go, or to encourage my boss to send me. I'd rather just read stuff online and avoid the plane flight and nights away from home.
I'm not sure what you're thinking, but those big ads in malls showing women in their underwear aren't trying to sell you anything. Men don't normally buy women's underwear. They're trying to sell underwear to women. The whole idea is to show ultra-beautiful women modeling this stuff, with the subconscious idea that buying these clothes will make a woman look more like the model. Many women want to be beautiful, so this appeal works.
You thinking VS is trying to sell something to you is rather disturbing actually; it shows that you have a massively inflated ego and think everything is all about you.
I think it's a combination of the two. In my experience as a divorced man over 40, there's basically two groups I ran into (it's a lot more complicated of course, but I'm generalizing): 1) is lesser-educated and more conservative women, who live in rural areas or suburbs. These women tend to be overweight, which is a giant negative for me, plus the conservatism and religiosity many have is a big deal-breaker. They also frequently have kids. 2) is well-educated, liberal women who live in urban centers or suburbs. These women tend to look better, but like you say they're overly picky, to a ridiculous extent IME. These are the ones I ran into a lot who were 40+ and never married (and no kids). These would be a better catch financially and looks-wise, but I seriously wonder how they'd be in a relationship; they're so used to being single it's hard to see them being able to compromise and live with someone. There's also liberal divorced women who have kids, but these tend to be financial disasters.
I ended up dating an Asian woman: liberal (but not too liberal, no silly SJW stuff here), financially secure, well-educated, good job, no kids (or desire for any), younger than me (but not too much), pretty (but not model-beautiful), slim/petite. We'll see how it goes but it looks very promising so far.
With American women, there seems to be no balance, and it seems to be impossible to find someone without some extremely negative trait who doesn't also have overly high expectations (causing her to never "settle" for anyone): they always have at least one of the following deal-breakers: obese, conservative (and I mean in a really bad way usually: Jesus/trucks/guns), religious, poorly educated, massive drinker, loud, financially irresponsible, entitlement mentality, deeply into extreme politics (left or right; you wouldn't believe how many women on OKCupid prominently state "social justice" as one of their big interests; right-wing women all seem to love guns and follow wacky conspiracy theories). If they're any good at all they frequently are saddled with kids which makes them nearly impossible to date. And looking back to when I was in my 20s, it was the same when I was dating back then. Foreign-born women just seem to be more reasonable people, and have more realistic expectations. The problem, of course, is that it can be more challenging to date them because of the cultural and language barriers (i.e. even if they're lived here a long time there's still differences that make dating hard).
Slashdot Mirror
Project Fi sucks; it's a Google service, and it only uses Google's own Nexus and Pixel phones. I'm sorry, a phone service that only lets you use one of a grand total of 3 phones is not a very good option unless you're a giant Google fan. You really should point out this fact about them any time you recommend them, as it's a huge caveat.
Republic Wireless is similar, though not quite as bad. They have a very limited selection of phones they'll work with, generally very new and expensive ones. If I wanted to spend $700 on a brand-new phone, instead of using a perfectly good 2-year-old model that I can get for a tiny fraction of that price, and I didn't mind buying another $700 phone in a year or two (since these companies' selection is likely to change), I probably wouldn't be that worried about saving money on my phone plan.
Um, aren't the two the same thing? To use D&D terminology, most "evil" people aren't chaotic evil, people who gleefully do sadistic horrible things in order to cause suffering for others. Most of them are the lawful-evil or neutral-evil types. These days, we call them "sociopaths" usually: they're people who have little or no conscience, and only work for their own benefit and self-interest, not anyone else's. "Self-serving" sounds like a pretty polite way to describe them. The only people who would fit the "chaotic-evil" description are true psychotics.
From what I've seen of Trump, I don't think he's a psychotic, I think he's mostly self-serving though. Notice how some of his actions are directly benefiting his businesses. But that's not unusual for highly corrupt politicians. Hillary seemed to be just the same, just less obvious about it, and not in league with such horrible people (e.g. Bannon), and not likely to pick such horrible cabinet members who'll truly harm the country in a significant way (e.g. DeVos, Sessions). But I do think Hillary was (and still is) evil. But at least she would have done some somewhat useful stuff in order to appease her base and to get her place in the history books and get re-elected. I think Trump is doing the same now, but his base is very different and the policies they want are far more destructive.
Now would you please like to defend your assertion that there are only two political parties?
I never asserted that, you did you fucking moron. Holy shit.
You're a fucking moron, and it's proven by your assertion that there's only two political parties. Funny that you talk about "basic stupidity" and you can't even figure that out.
TSA agents are not on airplanes in-flight. Are you stupid or just completely ignorant about air travel in the US?
Wrong. You hit it in #1: by assuming "you generally only have two options", and voting accordingly, you're guaranteeing a bad candidate gets elected, so it's really your fault and you're a hypocrite for complaining about the person you voted for.
As for #4 and #5, I don't think this is what we're talking about here. We're really talking about people voting for a candidate based on either #1, or some dumb idea of what they think the candidate is going to do (see the AC responder who's a conservative and then complains about the GOP going on a spending spree) and then gets mad when the candidate does what was blindingly obvious to everyone who wasn't a blind-faith believer in that party and its obviously false rhetoric ("we believe in small government!!") when there's decades of history proving that that party does something entirely different when in power.
Thus many conservatives complained when the neo-cons went on a massive spending spree when they had both houses of congress in the early 2000's. That was not what we had voted for and so we complained, and pulled our support leading to the Democrats taking over.
Oh bullshit. It *IS* what you had voted for. You were just too stupid to recognize it. It's always been plainly obvious that GOP politicians will go on a spending spree whenever they're in power. So again, you prove my point: you have no right (I don't mean a legal right) to criticize the people you elected: it just proves that you're a moron for electing them.
The only people who don't have credibility to complain are those who can't be bothered to vote.
Wrong. Anyone who didn't vote for the winning candidate has every right to complain. Obviously, if you didn't vote for the winner, you're not getting what you were promised, and are not hypocritical in pointing out how the winner is doing a bad job. Basically, you can say "I told you so" to all the idiots who voted for the winner.
If you'd pick a better candidate in the first place, you wouldn't feel the need to expend so much energy in "holding them accountable".
The Trump people are doing the right thing from their perspective: they're covering for him because it keeps them from looking like idiots for voting for him. What does that mean for you?
Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is why you have such bad candidates. Ergo, it's all your fault.
Except for things like local elections, I've literally never seen an election with only two candidates.
I'm not talking about any candidate in particular, I'm speaking abstractly. Fill in the blank with any candidate you want. I'm also not talking about legal rights here; you're reading too much into my earlier comment.
Just like the other poster said: if you complain about the person you voted for, and then you go and re-elect him, you're a moron and a whiner, and your criticism is useless.
The First Amendment fails to keep you from being a hypocrite and an idiot though.
If you didn't think the candidate would be very good (and apparently they're so bad you're out there complaining about him), then why did you vote for him?
I see a good way of cleaning up the TSA here. Send military people, fully armed, on commercial flights, carrying classified information, with orders to protect--at all costs--this material from anyone without clearing accessing it. Anyone who attempts to take the material can be shot on sight.
AFAIC, you really have little right to criticize the government if you voted for it, meaning you voted for the people you're criticizing. Doing so just makes you a hypocrite.
I wonder if you'd do better on the west coast, perhaps in the pacific northwest. I'm also on the east coast, in the DC area, and I have to agree about the vegans/vegetarians and social justice activists. I hear it's not like that in the PacNW. I think they're probably more into environmentalism, which is cool with me. My new gf and I are planning to move there eventually; we were even talking about this on the 1st or 2nd date.
You can't compare German Unions to the US because laws for how Unions operate in the two countries are night and day in difference. You think a German Union can protect a worker from being fired in Germany if he's caught shooting up on the assembly line? Think again.
Ok, but why does that difference exist? Why are the laws so messed up in the US, and so effective in Germany?
No, we are not a third world country
Well 3rd-world countries are generally known for having poor rule of law and a lot of corruption (so that the law is not effective). That seems to be exactly what you describe in the difference between Germany and the US with regard to unions.
I'm hoping the new administration can reverse course on a long run of progressivism which has corrupted the US
Wow, that's some serious delusion there. The new administration is composed of a bunch of billionaire kleptocrats; if you thought we had corruption problems before, it's going to be 100x worse after they're done. It's just that the groups that'll benefit from the corruption will be different: unions won't be benefiting any more, but instead the prosperity gospel megachurches with their millionaire preachers will be making out like bandits, setting up BS "schools" and getting federal money for them, as one example.
So why are Japanese-made cars better than Mexican, Thailand, or American-made cars by the same companies? Sorry if it offends you, but culture exists, and workers are not robots; people are different in different places. And why are American companies *still* unable to make things as good as German or Japanese companies? They've had at least a half-century to figure out that quality control thing. That's again a product of culture: American culture doesn't value doing a good job, it just values making money as fast as possible, and short-term results.
American culture does value risk-taking and entrepreneurialism a lot more (goes back to that short-term results thing), so we have things like Google and Uber, but we really suck at making high-quality, reliable products in mass quantities, and also doing really good engineering work to come up with the best designs (look at how lousy our software is).
For your Detroit and Flint, I can point to Germany where they have very strong unions and build good products and the companies are quite successful. Of course, you could blame this on "American unions", which is valid. Why the unions of America are *so* bad these days, I really don't know; my guess is that our country simply has a big culture of corruption which we refuse to admit. We're really more corrupt than Mexico, and at least as bad as crappy little Central American countries, we just refuse to believe it. Basically, culturally speaking, we're a third-world country that won the lottery.
That's hard to say. On one hand, yes, they are smarter (but in an evil way) about keeping outsiders out of their corrupt party. On the other hand, they're stupider because it was plainly obvious that Hillary was horribly unpopular and in serious danger of losing to Trump, which she did, and the whole way her campaign was conducted revealed deep, deep stupidity and tone-deafness about what the voters want and how to get voters to show up to vote (remember, the Dems court the under-30 vote, and that crowd is notorious for not showing up to vote if they're not enthusiastic about someone).
The problem with Republic Wireless is that you're locked into using their phones or an extremely limited number of others; you can't just bring any device like you can with other MVNOs.
You think "brogrammers" are "noble"? LOL
Exactly; if there's no entertainment at the place, then I'm less likely to want to go, or to encourage my boss to send me. I'd rather just read stuff online and avoid the plane flight and nights away from home.
I'm not sure what you're thinking, but those big ads in malls showing women in their underwear aren't trying to sell you anything. Men don't normally buy women's underwear. They're trying to sell underwear to women. The whole idea is to show ultra-beautiful women modeling this stuff, with the subconscious idea that buying these clothes will make a woman look more like the model. Many women want to be beautiful, so this appeal works.
You thinking VS is trying to sell something to you is rather disturbing actually; it shows that you have a massively inflated ego and think everything is all about you.
No, that's not good enough. We need to completely obliterate the Moon.
I think it's a combination of the two. In my experience as a divorced man over 40, there's basically two groups I ran into (it's a lot more complicated of course, but I'm generalizing): 1) is lesser-educated and more conservative women, who live in rural areas or suburbs. These women tend to be overweight, which is a giant negative for me, plus the conservatism and religiosity many have is a big deal-breaker. They also frequently have kids. 2) is well-educated, liberal women who live in urban centers or suburbs. These women tend to look better, but like you say they're overly picky, to a ridiculous extent IME. These are the ones I ran into a lot who were 40+ and never married (and no kids). These would be a better catch financially and looks-wise, but I seriously wonder how they'd be in a relationship; they're so used to being single it's hard to see them being able to compromise and live with someone. There's also liberal divorced women who have kids, but these tend to be financial disasters.
I ended up dating an Asian woman: liberal (but not too liberal, no silly SJW stuff here), financially secure, well-educated, good job, no kids (or desire for any), younger than me (but not too much), pretty (but not model-beautiful), slim/petite. We'll see how it goes but it looks very promising so far.
With American women, there seems to be no balance, and it seems to be impossible to find someone without some extremely negative trait who doesn't also have overly high expectations (causing her to never "settle" for anyone): they always have at least one of the following deal-breakers: obese, conservative (and I mean in a really bad way usually: Jesus/trucks/guns), religious, poorly educated, massive drinker, loud, financially irresponsible, entitlement mentality, deeply into extreme politics (left or right; you wouldn't believe how many women on OKCupid prominently state "social justice" as one of their big interests; right-wing women all seem to love guns and follow wacky conspiracy theories). If they're any good at all they frequently are saddled with kids which makes them nearly impossible to date. And looking back to when I was in my 20s, it was the same when I was dating back then. Foreign-born women just seem to be more reasonable people, and have more realistic expectations. The problem, of course, is that it can be more challenging to date them because of the cultural and language barriers (i.e. even if they're lived here a long time there's still differences that make dating hard).