Politifact is extremely biased and is not a remotely reliable way of telling who's a bigger liar. All it tells you is that they're both big liars.
One example of their bias is how they rate Trump a "liar" because he repeated the misquote from Gandhi about "first they ignore you...". The problem here is that, and Politifact even admits it, most people thought that Gandhi said that (and they still do). It's one of those popular memes, like that other mis-quote from Hitler about gun registration, that lots of people believe because they read it somewhere, and then it has to be debunked but no one reads the debunking. Repeating an extremely popular misquote, most likely in good faith, does not make one a liar. But Politifact uses that to increase Trump's "liar" score. If they're that blatantly biased, I'm not going to put much faith in the rest of their ratings.
Society gets nothing? You mean except for someone with an income, who can buy things, pay taxes, provide for a family, generate economic value and be a productive member of society, right?
As if you have a job solely to benefit others. Spare me. Big time sports are a business. People pay to see them play because they get value from doing so. It's part of the entertainment industry and whether you like it or not, it's a real business with real economic benefit to society.
If the swimmer wants to take that gamble, fine, but if the swimmer comes down with any diseases, I don't think their insurance company or the state should have any obligation to pay for it. This is no different than jumping out of an airplane: if you get hurt, you can pay all the bills yourself (insurance does not cover injury claims due to skydiving).
Society should have no obligation to help you when you've placed yourself willingly in mortal danger like this. If sports is such a big business, let those big businesses pay for these athletes' health problems.
This is just another case of privatized profits and socialized losses.
Why is it "ludicrous"? Do you have any real reasoning as to why it wouldn't work? The whole point of Common Carrier status is that it's a bargain: the telecom company gets immunity for information passing over its network in exchange for not interfering with that information. It was devised back in the telephone days, so that the telephone company didn't have legal liability for their communications system being used to abet crimes, in exchange for them not interfering with communications, and treating all calls the same. The same principle applies here.
So if these telecom companies don't want it, maybe they shouldn't have it forced on them. So then they lose the immunity aspect, and become completely liable for anything criminal their networks are used for. That should very quickly solve the problem: with all the telecoms executives in prison (which should be very easy to do given the volume of traffic and the number of crimes committed, including hacking, phishing, copyright infringement, etc.), the companies won't be able to operate any more, and the companies will be sold off for peanuts to new companies which will either suffer the same fate or accept Common Carrier status and net neutrality. Why shouldn't they have the choice? The problem I see is that they're not being given that choice in those terms.
Sure, water falls from the sky and if you want to drill a well, install a pump, and connect it to your house, you are free to do that. If you want it cleaned/filtered, the water company is happy to provide that and will charge you based on the size pipe running from your meter.
Not true. Most places will not allow you to just drill a well; any municipality will not. If everyone in a city drilled a well, it'd be a disaster; aquifers would be depleted or worse. Only rural dwellers are allowed to do this because the population density is low.
What *is* usually free and allowed (except in some weird western states like Colorado) is collecting rainwater. If you want to route your house's gutters into some tanks and collect rainwater and then drink it, go ahead. However I wouldn't want to drink that stuff. You could filter it yourself, and install a pump to pressurize it so your taps in your house all work, but that's going to cost money for equipment and electricity.
With a water utility, you're paying for multiple things: the purification and treatment of the water itself, and also the pressurization (which requires a non-trivial amount of power; the pumps they use are huge). You're likely also paying either a combined or separate sewer fee to take away your wastewater, so that you don't have to find space for a septic field and then pay for its maintenance.
I think maybe we should do the opposite: we should give them exactly what they're asking for. We should exempt them from Common Carrier status, and let them regulate traffic on their network however they see fit.
However, by not being common carriers and having that status and protection, they become fully liable for all traffic on their network. So if any crimes at all are committed using their network, they are fully liable, including criminally. If someone gets hacked and it went over a company's wires, that company's executives get convicted of accessory to hacking and sent to prison. If terrorists use the internet for recruiting members and propagandizing, and that traffic goes over a company's wires, that company's executives go to prison for aiding and abetting terrorists.
Fuck you, you sack of shit. If you think stiffening the suspension on an SUV is going to make it handle like a car and not roll over, and somehow counteract the fucking laws of physics, then you're a complete fucking moron. Go jump in a river.
If you're a man, and a woman has repeatedly told you she doesn't want you to touch her, and you grab her pussy while she's asleep, you're a SCUMBAG RAPIST, and you should be in fucking jail.
And how exactly do you intend to prove her allegations? Make it a requirement that every bed have a government-operated camera monitoring it 24x7? Because that's the only way you can prove such allegations.
Until that day comes, a smart woman will avoid putting herself into these situations. And if you're too stupid to understand this, then you're a shit excuse for a human.
Some elements end in -um, some in -ium. If you complain about aluminum, then you're a hypocrite for also not complaining about all the others. Americans aren't complaining about all the elements ending in -ium; we have no problem understanding that some are one way and some another, it's only a bunch of dickheads who seem to think they should all end in -ium and complain about this even though a bunch of them don't, and haven't for millenia.
Finance? It's go Quickbooks or go home. And they *only* make a Windows version. (No, that online crap doesn't count)
According to another poster here, Quickbooks doesn't work on Windows 10, only Win7.
So saying that we "chose" to use Microsoft is like saying that someone who lives in a cholera infested area "chose" to drink beer, and that attitude won't win you any favours.
I'm not trying to win any favors. I'm actually just laughing at you all as you suffer with all the stuff MS is doing lately, which are the direct results of your own bad choices.
For one, we're talking about police vehicles here. They're not going to be chasing someone at high speeds and just cruise in a straight line. What if the suspect tries to run them off the road?
Secondly, just because your vehicle can go in a straight line doesn't mean it's safe at that speed. What if you need to swerve or take some evasive action? Now you're looking at a rollover. You really have no business driving that vehicle faster than 55. If you want to drive fast, get a car.
Where is that? I've never seen a police car anywhere in the US that wasn't some type of American-brand car. Not saying it's impossible, but I've really never seen or even heard of it. Usually, for the cars, they use either Chargers or Impalas. I'm sure Passats are more economical than those two, but not by that much over the Impala I would think.
Yeah, except in this case there's countless prey animals constantly distracting the T-rex from the tar pits, telling him "don't go to those pits, come eat me instead!!"
Hahaha!!! Maybe you don't remember, but they already had an anti-trust trial back in the late 90s. Nothing came of it, and that was back when MS had even more of a monopoly than they do now (back then, desktop Linux was basically non-existent and Macs were barely on the radar, and smartphones didn't exist).
There's plenty of alternatives now for people who really want to free themselves from MS's crapware. The problem is that they just don't want to. And I don't feel sorry for them one bit. They were warned about this stuff many, many years ago and they didn't listen and even ridiculed us; now their chickens are coming home to roost. I look forward to the next abuse MS heaps on them.
Considering Microsoft making exceptions to lockdowns, I think they are going to piss off a lot of minor businesses because Windows Professional will not get those exceptions.
Yeah, and what are they gonna do about it? File a complaint? bwahahaha
Everyone collectively deciding to hand MS this much power over their computing infrastructure has enabled MS to act this way, and the customers are now reaping the rewards of their decisions.
I don't have 6-10 hours a week to mess around with crap not working randomly.
Apparently you do have time and inclination and tolerance to put up with MS advertising to you and preventing you from turning off spyware and other "features".
I also don't want to waste the money I spent.
You need to go read about the Sunk Cost Fallacy.
You offer a half baked solution without understanding the current needs of the populace
Hey, if the populace doesn't mind being spied on and having advertising forced on them right in the OS, then good for them, they can have it. Not me.
Push them to Apple at least.
I don't think all that software you listed will work on MacOSX, so that doesn't seem like a viable alternative to people like you either.
You might want to also check out Linux Mint with Cinnamon, as Mint is the distro that actually created Cinnamon and maintains it, so it's absolutely a first-class citizen there. It probably isn't that different from running it on Ubuntu, but it might be worth looking at.
It seems to me that it's now radically easier to own and/or carry a gun in a lot of places where back in the 70s it was basically impossible. IIRC, concealed carry was not allowed very much in most states back then, that's actually a somewhat new thing.
Why should I give a shit about the President being xenophobic, racist, etc.? The important thing to me is if they're going to start another war like Bush did. There's every indication that Hillary will do just this, probably in Syria. With Trump, who knows. He's been playing the nationalist and isolationist card, and saying some nice things about Putin, so it seems much less likely; more likely, he'll tell Putin to do whateverTF he wants in Syria as long as it results in ISIS being obliterated, as that's the *only* thing I've heard him say in favor of any kind of interventionism. Hillary, by contrast, has a long history of supporting interventionism.
If that means I have to put up with a "xenophobe" in the White House to avoid thousands of Americans being killed in yet another stupid war in the middle east, I'm OK with that.
And if you think Hillary isn't also narcissistic, I've got a bridge to sell you.
You don't think the RNC is doing the same stuff? They're both corrupt, don't delude yourself.
No, actually, I don't. Or if they are, they're not very effective at it, because if they were, Trump wouldn't be the nominee now. It's been no secret at all that the RNC does not like Trump, and never wanted him to be their nominee. They wanted Jeb! or Little Marco or Lyin' Ted. Blowhard Trump was not at all what they wanted, but because they weren't remotely as effective in rigging things as the DNC, that's what they got.
Trump even used their new winner-takes-all primaries rules against them, which is how he got so many delegates. They only enacted those new rules recently so they could avoid brokered conventions, but it blew up in their faces, with Trump winning the nomination with a minority of votes. It probably didn't help that the media gave so much free air-time to Trump just because he was such a spectacle, and perhaps also because they (correctly) reasoned that with Hillary to be coronated by the DNC, that her only chance of winning the general election was if Trump was the nominee.
So sure, the RNC may be "corrupt" too, but completely inept corruption just isn't a problem the way competent corruption is.
Except he has never been officially charged with anything, so innocent until proven guilty does not apply. He was simply fired from his job.
Wrong. He was not only fired from his job, but he's been publicly defamed and accused of this. He actually has a good case for a defamation or libel suit.
It doesn't absolve the bad deed doer of their bad deeds, but it does make it pretty much impossible (short of a recording) for the "victim" to prove her case, rather than it being a typical he-said-she-said.
If you don't want to be abused, don't willingly put yourself in a situation where you're likely to be abused.
I'm sorry, if some girl complains to me that she decided to jump in bed with some guy she wasn't interested in, and then got groped, I have zero sympathy. She put herself into a bad situation there willingly. Beds are intimate places to share with people; don't share one with someone if you're not on intimate terms with them, or at least reserve it for someone you have absolute trust in (e.g. your guy-friend of 10 years who's always respected your boundaries is probably a safe bet; some guy you barely know and who obviously has a sexual interest in you is definitely not).
If you're on the couch with some girl and you want to get frisky, asking bluntly is... not attractive. At all. It's more likely to get you a sharp "no" (or a laugh at how hilariously stupid you are, and a signal to pretend you were just kidding and never talk about this again)
It probably depends on the girl. If she's one of today's 4th-wave feminists, she'll be pissed you didn't ask for explicit consent first. Of course, this same girl probably isn't someone any normal guy would have any physical attraction to anyway....
Slashdot Mirror
Politifact is extremely biased and is not a remotely reliable way of telling who's a bigger liar. All it tells you is that they're both big liars.
One example of their bias is how they rate Trump a "liar" because he repeated the misquote from Gandhi about "first they ignore you...". The problem here is that, and Politifact even admits it, most people thought that Gandhi said that (and they still do). It's one of those popular memes, like that other mis-quote from Hitler about gun registration, that lots of people believe because they read it somewhere, and then it has to be debunked but no one reads the debunking. Repeating an extremely popular misquote, most likely in good faith, does not make one a liar. But Politifact uses that to increase Trump's "liar" score. If they're that blatantly biased, I'm not going to put much faith in the rest of their ratings.
Society gets nothing? You mean except for someone with an income, who can buy things, pay taxes, provide for a family, generate economic value and be a productive member of society, right?
As if you have a job solely to benefit others. Spare me. Big time sports are a business. People pay to see them play because they get value from doing so. It's part of the entertainment industry and whether you like it or not, it's a real business with real economic benefit to society.
If the swimmer wants to take that gamble, fine, but if the swimmer comes down with any diseases, I don't think their insurance company or the state should have any obligation to pay for it. This is no different than jumping out of an airplane: if you get hurt, you can pay all the bills yourself (insurance does not cover injury claims due to skydiving).
Society should have no obligation to help you when you've placed yourself willingly in mortal danger like this. If sports is such a big business, let those big businesses pay for these athletes' health problems.
This is just another case of privatized profits and socialized losses.
Why is it "ludicrous"? Do you have any real reasoning as to why it wouldn't work? The whole point of Common Carrier status is that it's a bargain: the telecom company gets immunity for information passing over its network in exchange for not interfering with that information. It was devised back in the telephone days, so that the telephone company didn't have legal liability for their communications system being used to abet crimes, in exchange for them not interfering with communications, and treating all calls the same. The same principle applies here.
So if these telecom companies don't want it, maybe they shouldn't have it forced on them. So then they lose the immunity aspect, and become completely liable for anything criminal their networks are used for. That should very quickly solve the problem: with all the telecoms executives in prison (which should be very easy to do given the volume of traffic and the number of crimes committed, including hacking, phishing, copyright infringement, etc.), the companies won't be able to operate any more, and the companies will be sold off for peanuts to new companies which will either suffer the same fate or accept Common Carrier status and net neutrality. Why shouldn't they have the choice? The problem I see is that they're not being given that choice in those terms.
Sure, water falls from the sky and if you want to drill a well, install a pump, and connect it to your house, you are free to do that. If you want it cleaned/filtered, the water company is happy to provide that and will charge you based on the size pipe running from your meter.
Not true. Most places will not allow you to just drill a well; any municipality will not. If everyone in a city drilled a well, it'd be a disaster; aquifers would be depleted or worse. Only rural dwellers are allowed to do this because the population density is low.
What *is* usually free and allowed (except in some weird western states like Colorado) is collecting rainwater. If you want to route your house's gutters into some tanks and collect rainwater and then drink it, go ahead. However I wouldn't want to drink that stuff. You could filter it yourself, and install a pump to pressurize it so your taps in your house all work, but that's going to cost money for equipment and electricity.
With a water utility, you're paying for multiple things: the purification and treatment of the water itself, and also the pressurization (which requires a non-trivial amount of power; the pumps they use are huge). You're likely also paying either a combined or separate sewer fee to take away your wastewater, so that you don't have to find space for a septic field and then pay for its maintenance.
I think maybe we should do the opposite: we should give them exactly what they're asking for. We should exempt them from Common Carrier status, and let them regulate traffic on their network however they see fit.
However, by not being common carriers and having that status and protection, they become fully liable for all traffic on their network. So if any crimes at all are committed using their network, they are fully liable, including criminally. If someone gets hacked and it went over a company's wires, that company's executives get convicted of accessory to hacking and sent to prison. If terrorists use the internet for recruiting members and propagandizing, and that traffic goes over a company's wires, that company's executives go to prison for aiding and abetting terrorists.
Fuck you, you sack of shit. If you think stiffening the suspension on an SUV is going to make it handle like a car and not roll over, and somehow counteract the fucking laws of physics, then you're a complete fucking moron. Go jump in a river.
If you're a man, and a woman has repeatedly told you she doesn't want you to touch her, and you grab her pussy while she's asleep, you're a SCUMBAG RAPIST, and you should be in fucking jail.
And how exactly do you intend to prove her allegations? Make it a requirement that every bed have a government-operated camera monitoring it 24x7? Because that's the only way you can prove such allegations.
Until that day comes, a smart woman will avoid putting herself into these situations. And if you're too stupid to understand this, then you're a shit excuse for a human.
Your point?
Some elements end in -um, some in -ium. If you complain about aluminum, then you're a hypocrite for also not complaining about all the others. Americans aren't complaining about all the elements ending in -ium; we have no problem understanding that some are one way and some another, it's only a bunch of dickheads who seem to think they should all end in -ium and complain about this even though a bunch of them don't, and haven't for millenia.
Finance? It's go Quickbooks or go home. And they *only* make a Windows version. (No, that online crap doesn't count)
According to another poster here, Quickbooks doesn't work on Windows 10, only Win7.
So saying that we "chose" to use Microsoft is like saying that someone who lives in a cholera infested area "chose" to drink beer, and that attitude won't win you any favours.
I'm not trying to win any favors. I'm actually just laughing at you all as you suffer with all the stuff MS is doing lately, which are the direct results of your own bad choices.
I'm guessing not, since the Apollo astronauts flew to the Moon in a tin can.
For one, we're talking about police vehicles here. They're not going to be chasing someone at high speeds and just cruise in a straight line. What if the suspect tries to run them off the road?
Secondly, just because your vehicle can go in a straight line doesn't mean it's safe at that speed. What if you need to swerve or take some evasive action? Now you're looking at a rollover. You really have no business driving that vehicle faster than 55. If you want to drive fast, get a car.
Where is that? I've never seen a police car anywhere in the US that wasn't some type of American-brand car. Not saying it's impossible, but I've really never seen or even heard of it. Usually, for the cars, they use either Chargers or Impalas. I'm sure Passats are more economical than those two, but not by that much over the Impala I would think.
Yeah, except in this case there's countless prey animals constantly distracting the T-rex from the tar pits, telling him "don't go to those pits, come eat me instead!!"
Hahaha!!! Maybe you don't remember, but they already had an anti-trust trial back in the late 90s. Nothing came of it, and that was back when MS had even more of a monopoly than they do now (back then, desktop Linux was basically non-existent and Macs were barely on the radar, and smartphones didn't exist).
There's plenty of alternatives now for people who really want to free themselves from MS's crapware. The problem is that they just don't want to. And I don't feel sorry for them one bit. They were warned about this stuff many, many years ago and they didn't listen and even ridiculed us; now their chickens are coming home to roost. I look forward to the next abuse MS heaps on them.
Well that's what you get for basing your company's essential infrastructure on a product made by a company that's been openly abusive for decades.
Don't be too surprised when an "important update" to your Win7 systems adds more spyware or reduces functionality.
When has MS ever been sued by a customer and lost?
Considering Microsoft making exceptions to lockdowns, I think they are going to piss off a lot of minor businesses because Windows Professional will not get those exceptions.
Yeah, and what are they gonna do about it? File a complaint? bwahahaha
Everyone collectively deciding to hand MS this much power over their computing infrastructure has enabled MS to act this way, and the customers are now reaping the rewards of their decisions.
I don't have 6-10 hours a week to mess around with crap not working randomly.
Apparently you do have time and inclination and tolerance to put up with MS advertising to you and preventing you from turning off spyware and other "features".
I also don't want to waste the money I spent.
You need to go read about the Sunk Cost Fallacy.
You offer a half baked solution without understanding the current needs of the populace
Hey, if the populace doesn't mind being spied on and having advertising forced on them right in the OS, then good for them, they can have it. Not me.
Push them to Apple at least.
I don't think all that software you listed will work on MacOSX, so that doesn't seem like a viable alternative to people like you either.
You might want to also check out Linux Mint with Cinnamon, as Mint is the distro that actually created Cinnamon and maintains it, so it's absolutely a first-class citizen there. It probably isn't that different from running it on Ubuntu, but it might be worth looking at.
It seems to me that it's now radically easier to own and/or carry a gun in a lot of places where back in the 70s it was basically impossible. IIRC, concealed carry was not allowed very much in most states back then, that's actually a somewhat new thing.
Why should I give a shit about the President being xenophobic, racist, etc.? The important thing to me is if they're going to start another war like Bush did. There's every indication that Hillary will do just this, probably in Syria. With Trump, who knows. He's been playing the nationalist and isolationist card, and saying some nice things about Putin, so it seems much less likely; more likely, he'll tell Putin to do whateverTF he wants in Syria as long as it results in ISIS being obliterated, as that's the *only* thing I've heard him say in favor of any kind of interventionism. Hillary, by contrast, has a long history of supporting interventionism.
If that means I have to put up with a "xenophobe" in the White House to avoid thousands of Americans being killed in yet another stupid war in the middle east, I'm OK with that.
And if you think Hillary isn't also narcissistic, I've got a bridge to sell you.
You don't think the RNC is doing the same stuff? They're both corrupt, don't delude yourself.
No, actually, I don't. Or if they are, they're not very effective at it, because if they were, Trump wouldn't be the nominee now. It's been no secret at all that the RNC does not like Trump, and never wanted him to be their nominee. They wanted Jeb! or Little Marco or Lyin' Ted. Blowhard Trump was not at all what they wanted, but because they weren't remotely as effective in rigging things as the DNC, that's what they got.
Trump even used their new winner-takes-all primaries rules against them, which is how he got so many delegates. They only enacted those new rules recently so they could avoid brokered conventions, but it blew up in their faces, with Trump winning the nomination with a minority of votes. It probably didn't help that the media gave so much free air-time to Trump just because he was such a spectacle, and perhaps also because they (correctly) reasoned that with Hillary to be coronated by the DNC, that her only chance of winning the general election was if Trump was the nominee.
So sure, the RNC may be "corrupt" too, but completely inept corruption just isn't a problem the way competent corruption is.
Except he has never been officially charged with anything, so innocent until proven guilty does not apply. He was simply fired from his job.
Wrong. He was not only fired from his job, but he's been publicly defamed and accused of this. He actually has a good case for a defamation or libel suit.
It doesn't absolve the bad deed doer of their bad deeds, but it does make it pretty much impossible (short of a recording) for the "victim" to prove her case, rather than it being a typical he-said-she-said.
If you don't want to be abused, don't willingly put yourself in a situation where you're likely to be abused.
I'm sorry, if some girl complains to me that she decided to jump in bed with some guy she wasn't interested in, and then got groped, I have zero sympathy. She put herself into a bad situation there willingly. Beds are intimate places to share with people; don't share one with someone if you're not on intimate terms with them, or at least reserve it for someone you have absolute trust in (e.g. your guy-friend of 10 years who's always respected your boundaries is probably a safe bet; some guy you barely know and who obviously has a sexual interest in you is definitely not).
If you're on the couch with some girl and you want to get frisky, asking bluntly is... not attractive. At all. It's more likely to get you a sharp "no" (or a laugh at how hilariously stupid you are, and a signal to pretend you were just kidding and never talk about this again)
It probably depends on the girl. If she's one of today's 4th-wave feminists, she'll be pissed you didn't ask for explicit consent first. Of course, this same girl probably isn't someone any normal guy would have any physical attraction to anyway....