Very few white americans use a hyphenated nationality.
What you're saying is technically correct (the best kind!) What tends to happen (in my experience here in Florida) is that someone whose great great grandparents moved here from Ireland, Italy, or whatever, will say they're "Irish" or "Italian" or whatever. Only if it is deemed important to the context of the discussion will they hyphen-american it.
As someone who didn't comment one way or another on banning flimsy plastic single shot "guns", can we quit with the "If they do X to thing I don't like, then one day they might do X to something I do like!" takes because they're completely moronic.
Facebook is perfectly capable of banning the use of its facilities to sell KODI boxes without banning 3D Plastic Guns. Its ban on 3D plastic guns is completely irrelevant.
Moreover, the principle "We must never do X with bad things because it might be used with good things" is never going to be workable. "Let's ban stealing. We'll arrest people who steal, then put them on trial, and if found guilty jail them." "Uh yeah, but if we do that, then what stops the same power from banning feeding starving children, arresting people who feed starving children, putting them on trial, and then if found guilty jailing them? Hmmm? HMMM?"
It's OK to try to stop things you consider bad. Really. It is.
You're not advocating a great truth, or even sounding profound, in proposing it isn't.
How much is Monsanto paying you to astroturf, by the way? Where do I apply? I could use some extra income.
Did you even read the GP?
He's explicitlysaying that Round-up is cancerous, it's just it's not the active ingredient, glyphosate, that's causing the cancer:
The problem isn't glyphosate, the problem is everything else that's put into Roundup
(...)Other people go around saying roundup is dangerous and wave a bunch of valid studies in your face. They too are correct
The first sentence I quote BTW is the second sentence of the OP. The first is just a call not to spread disinformation, and the rest of the comment implies that this is because it lets Monsanto off the hook to concentrate on the non-cancerous part of Round-up and ignore that it's Round-up, not the active ingredient, that's the problem here.
I'm not saying the network card might also have had problems, but if you're seeing corrupted characters on a webpage, then that hints at problems beyond the network. Web pages are delivered via TCP, and TCP packets are error checked by the operating system, not the network card.
Re:Does it have collaborative online editing yet?
on
LibreOffice 6.1 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
(Your other option I guess would be Microsoft Office 365 Online, but I find - ironically perhaps - that their implementation of web and mobile "Office" to have poor compatibility with the desktop versions.)
It's actually very easy for the UK "spook team" as you call it, or British government in general: you just modify the law if necessary to include DNS proxy services, and then prosecute Cloudflare. The latter then has the choice between continuing to operate in the UK, accepting it has to filter DNS results, or taking its ball home.
The latter is not an option for CF, so they'd cave.
In some ways this might be the worst solution Mozilla could come up with as far as ensuring DNS integrity goes. They're centralizing it, and centralizing with parties that have a lot to lose if they fall foul of a government that doesn't want a free for all DNS.
ISPs haven't exactly been pushing IPv6, more tolerating its existence. Home router manufacturers generally don't enable it by default. Some operating system use the IPv6 "privacy extensions" which essentially grab a new IPv6 address for each outgoing connection, rather than linking your address to your MAC or DHCPv6 allocated address. Which incidentally is a horrible idea.
I would suggest to you the vast majority of downloads come from regular old IPv4 addresses.
I'd also suggest it doesn't really matter. Most of the time a single family will be using an IPv4 address, the "shared house full of people sharing one connection" and "oops I accidentally opened my Wifi" things are by far the minority of situations.
You mean "It's also a neutral for some iPhone buyers, since many, perhaps most of iPhone buyers, already have wireless headphones that they like and prefer to wired headphones, and only plan to listen to music via the headphones, so won't necessarily need an adapter"?
Adding the adapter does not harm iPhone buyers who have no plans to use wired audio equipment in the slightest.
Well, only if there's also a time slider so you can see a snapshot of what it looks like at a particular time and date.
Ideally, using "Inspect element" on the slider should mean you can extend the date range to, say, the future, and see what Earth will look like later on today, or even next week.
IE = Google = ads = tracking
Edge = Google = ads = tracking
Safari = Google = ads = tracking
Firefox = Google = ads = tracking
...are also true. They're all web browsers. The web is pretty much dominated by Google.
At the same time, the whole "Google is tracking me" stuff seems overblown. They're tracking some minor historical data and feeding it their into computers that determine what ads to show me, not selling my data to the Internet Research Agency to help Russian trolls identify me and piss me off.
I have both, and TBH I use the Chromebook, despite being underpowered, more than the Ubuntu laptop(s) I have. I use the latter for stuff I can't do using the Chromebook.
Chromebooks are well supported, they're fast, they're lightweight, have tablet like battery lives, and are pleasant to use.
If Obama had said the same thing, would you have assumed Obama didn't understand anything at all, or would you have assumed he understood enough to realize that what the court (and plaintiff states) were doing didn't make sense?
If Obama had said the same thing, then yes, it would be fair to assume he didn't understand anything at all. But he wouldn't have said the same thing.
If Obama had implemented a policy of cancelling the visas of asylum seekers fleeing Syria while they're en-route, then yes, liberals would have condemned it. But he wouldn't do that.
If Obama had described white nationalists/neo-nazis as "very fine people", and had appointed people with ties to these movements to his trusted inner circle of advisors, then yes, it would have shown terrible judgement and been worth condemning, and liberals would have done so. But that's not something Obama would have done.
If there were suspicions that a foreign government had assisted Obama in getting elected, and Obama had tried to do everything possible to hamper an investigation into that government's actions, and had even publicly sided with the leader of that government, praising him in public despite a history of horrific human rights abuses, and dismissing US intelligence on the subject, he would have been considered a deeply untrustworthy president, and liberals would have wanted nothing to do with him. But Obama didn't, and isn't that kind of person.
If Obama had implemented a policy of deterring asylum seekers by pretending a law existed requiring they apply for asylum at their port of entry, intentionally directing them at their port of entry to a different office, and then arresting them, taking their children, and placing their children in the care of agencies known to drug, torture, and otherwise abuse those children, Obama would be a deeply evil person and liberals would want him impeached. But he didn't and wouldn't.
The argument "You're only against it because Trump did it, you'd have been fine if Obama did it" is deeply stupid and offensive. Obama did some deeply horrible things, in fact liberals hated his immigration policies despite them being at least slightly logical (what is wrong with prioritizing undocumented immigrants who commit non-immigration related crimes if you're going to enforce immigration laws? Why was that bad? Why should we be focusing instead on deporting - and harming - those fleeing terror, war, and persecution?), but he never sank as low as Trump has.
If you can't justify something without pretending it wouldn't have been an issue if Obama did it, especially knowing damned well Obama wouldn't have done it anyway, maybe you can't justify it.
White flight referred to any group of white people leaving a city due to a concerted campaign based upon racism. There's a story of a realtor who hired a black woman to push a baby carriage around a neighborhood, specifically so that they could encourage white people to move out to the suburbs, making money from both the sale of the new house, and the sale of the old one.
Gentrification isn't caused by people moving into a city, or what people moving in is called; it's the redevelopment of an area in order to make it more attractive, with one of the side effects being that more people want to move there, so causing a rise in property values, so resulting in people with higher incomes than existing residents moving in.
Gentrification can be good or bad. It's good if most existing residents own their own homes. It's bad, and can destroy communities if most existing residents don't, because their rents rise, and they end up being unable to afford to live there any more.
You're seriously saying he didn't double down because a few hours after he did so he deleted the comments?
He most certainly did. He made the allegation. He was called on it. He added "Bet ya a signed dollar it's true".
That happened.
Yes, he apologized, and deleted the tweets concerned, but that doesn't change the fact he's an asshole who did an assholish thing, and he shouldn't have done it.
Why do you defend him all the time, regardless of how shitty his behavior is?
No they're not. You can't just claim that there are "two sides" to anything by inventing opinions of the "other side" so that it appears they're equally bad.
"OMG Trump is taking the children away from asylum seekers and putting them in facilities where he knows they're going to be tortured."
"Oh yeah? Well I didn't hear lieberaltards complain when Clinton was doing the exact same thing!"
"Actually, it was Obama who was the last President, he wasn't doing the exact same thing, and liberals were complaining loudly about ICE then too, which was being abusive but not to this extreme."
"Oh yeah, well, uh shut up libtard."
There's no great movement among the left for "States Rights". On occasion, you'll see the left pointing out that it's ludicrous for the right to claim it's in favor when it's trampling over, for example, state level pot legalization, but we're pretty much open about the fact that we want the federal government to work to improve the rights, welfare, and safety of all, and we don't see the states as being remotely good at that. In fact, we know structurally they'll never be able to do what needs to be done.
It's very normal, though it's becoming less normal. But that said, it's stupid, and it's not a feature. "Exclusive" is one of those terms like "Proprietary" that marketers think sells products, but actually makes them less desirable.
Almost all areas have at least two ISPs, the telephone company and the cable company.
People keep arguing the latter has "exclusive monopoly rights" granted by the local governments, but that's not true either. That might have been true for a decade or two when the company started up, but since then those agreements have been invalidated.
But even if they did have monopoly rights, it wouldn't matter, because the monopoly was on cable TV, not on ISP services. Not even the old, obsolete, exclusive franchise agreements would have prevented new ISPs from setting up in any area.
The reality is that there usually just two ISPs in any area for a simple reason: they both already have infrastructure, whereas any new ISP is going to have to lay cable. And laying cable is phenomenally expensive.
There are things that can help such as local governments helping new ISPs have access to existing poles to hang wires from, rather than forcing them to bury it, but poles aren't everywhere, and those poles often belong to companies that have no desire to allow third parties access.
The other problem is it's easier for telecoms and cable operators to market their services. There used to be WISPs in my area, offering point to point WiMAX service. They disappeared. Why? Presumably because everyone had heard of AT&T and Comcast, they were already customers of both, whereas the WISPs would have had to do a major advertising campaign just to get noticed. Meanwhile AT&T and Comcast can simply ask you whether you want internet service whenever you move in to a new home and call them to get your TV or telephone hooked up. The WISPs you'd have to contact separately.
There are plenty of people who think the solution is "more competition" as if someone can just wave their wand and bring forth millions of miles of fiber optic cable. It's not that easy.
Even Google can't do it. Google. Think about that.
They have been fixed, just not in stock Android. ChromeOS runs Android apps as desktop apps, even in resizable windows. I have a 2:1 Chromebook and it is by far the better way to run Android apps, even allowing for the fact that many apps find concepts like "Arrow scrolling" (or even mousewheel scrolling) too much to handle.
I think Google doesn't want to lose control of ChromeOS as it did Android and that's why you're not seeing a push to put ChromeOS on tablets. But I'd definitely recommend anyone considering a 2:1 "Android" solution to consider a 2:1 Chromebook instead.
$7,000 a year isn't going to pay rent in most of the country. Plus, the US CoL is insane - to buy groceries in most of the country and go to the bank means either owning a car (looking at $10,000 a year in amortized costs, maintenance, and fuel, for something on the cheap end) or spending the entire day traveling. (When I've suggested this could be avoided by, you know, letting developers build high density/mixed use developments if they want, so that people, if they want, can live there, it's usually been replied to with howls of "YOU'RE FORCING ME TO RIDE BUSES" so it's a political non-starter, and will be for as long as people confuse choice with force, and think being forced to use one form of transportation is choice.) So $7000 minus $6-12,000 in rent, minus $12,000 in utilities (God forbid you live in Florida...), minus $10,000 in transportation, minus $2,500 in food... leaves someone unable to work with not a lot of money. Many will choose to spend $350 of that $7,000 on a shotgun instead, which they'll proceed to "eat".
Here's the big problem with UBI. It's a one-size-fits-all thing for something that won't fit. It's a proposal to replace all benefits, from unemployment through welfare to disability. Politicians will see reasons to cut it during times of high voluntary unemployment and will have pressures to increase it during times of high job shortages. Within a few years, the fact this model is broken because it assumes that people are unemployed solely due to work availability and prospective wages, rather than things beyond their control like disability or parenthood, is going to become readily apparent.
And how will that be fixed? The only way to fix it will end up being to reintroduce many of the benefits that UBI was supposed to replace, thus undermining the whole "We give everyone money and save in bureaucracy!" argument.
When I was in my 20s, I thought UBI was a good idea too (yes, it's not a new idea, although it wasn't something anyone was talking about, I genuinely thought I had come up with the idea myself!), but as you get older, and see how the world works, and that it's not simple, you realize it's not going to work as advertised.
It'll never be enough to live on, and it'll always be too high for those paying for it.
You remember when Al Gore said "I totally invented the Internet, yeah, invented. Suck on that Edison, my invention is way better than your's."?
Well, he didn't. He said:
During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our countryâ(TM)s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
What Gore was talking about at the time, and he deserves credit not ridicule for, is that he pushed through several initiatives through congress that took the Internet out of the academic/military context in which it was originally built, and made it available to everyone. The GP is indeed correct that what existed prior to Gore's involvement was heavily restricted - you couldn't use it (at least, not the TCP/IP routed real time network, there were other networks such as Usenet that became part of the Internet that existed outside of that) without permission, and the people who controlled it had wide latitude in throwing people out. Commercial activity was defacto banned, because it wasn't part of the military/academic usage that Arpanet was funded for.
One infamous early user who was kicked off for misusing it was Jerry Pournelle, the science fiction author and Byte columnist, who was kicked off Arpanet after being obnoxious to other sysadmins when they asked him to kindly stop mentioning this major military project in his public Byte column. He was kicked off both for being a dick, and for constantly using it as material for his outside activities.
The implication here is citizens are too stupid to make their own decisions and must be forced into specific behaviors by the Almighty Hand Of Government
Nope, the implication here is that citizens might make choices that other citizens - who Peskin represents - do not want them to make. This isn't about healthy eating or some other situation that would fit within the criteria you propose, it's about the fact that a minority that has control over the SF government absolutely hates, hates with a passion, newcomers, and wants to punish them for not being part of the existing community.
It's the same mentality that has someone post a "Welcome to America, now speak English" sticker on the back of their pick-up truck. Don't be fooled because the citizens doing this are more cosmopolitan than those who do the latter, it's pretty much the same mentality.
There are numerous reasons people pass laws. Clamping down on anti-social behavior is one, whether it's murder or spoiling the environment. Another, legitimate, reason is to ensure the maximum welfare for all, such as regulating food labeling or enabling standards so expectations can be set. Another is "for your own good", be it sugar taxes (where the taxes don't go into mitigation, I'd be fine with a sugar tax that subsidizes healthcare, that'd fall into the second category) or bans on drugs. And and a final example, the worst, is to punish "those people", be it Jim Crow at one extreme, or laws like this one on the other.
This is a case of the latter, not the penultimate, type of law on that list.
NIMBYs have far, far, too much power in this country. They're why we can't have nice things - literally. There's a lot of pseudo-"environmental protection" laws that need reform to cover the real world - you shouldn't need permission to run trains on an existing rail line, and it should be relatively easy to build a block of apartments in an area zoned high density mixed use.
Slashdot Mirror
What you're saying is technically correct (the best kind!) What tends to happen (in my experience here in Florida) is that someone whose great great grandparents moved here from Ireland, Italy, or whatever, will say they're "Irish" or "Italian" or whatever. Only if it is deemed important to the context of the discussion will they hyphen-american it.
N/T.
As someone who didn't comment one way or another on banning flimsy plastic single shot "guns", can we quit with the "If they do X to thing I don't like, then one day they might do X to something I do like!" takes because they're completely moronic.
Facebook is perfectly capable of banning the use of its facilities to sell KODI boxes without banning 3D Plastic Guns. Its ban on 3D plastic guns is completely irrelevant.
Moreover, the principle "We must never do X with bad things because it might be used with good things" is never going to be workable. "Let's ban stealing. We'll arrest people who steal, then put them on trial, and if found guilty jail them." "Uh yeah, but if we do that, then what stops the same power from banning feeding starving children, arresting people who feed starving children, putting them on trial, and then if found guilty jailing them? Hmmm? HMMM?"
It's OK to try to stop things you consider bad. Really. It is.
You're not advocating a great truth, or even sounding profound, in proposing it isn't.
Did you even read the GP?
He's explicitlysaying that Round-up is cancerous, it's just it's not the active ingredient, glyphosate, that's causing the cancer:
The first sentence I quote BTW is the second sentence of the OP. The first is just a call not to spread disinformation, and the rest of the comment implies that this is because it lets Monsanto off the hook to concentrate on the non-cancerous part of Round-up and ignore that it's Round-up, not the active ingredient, that's the problem here.
I'm not saying the network card might also have had problems, but if you're seeing corrupted characters on a webpage, then that hints at problems beyond the network. Web pages are delivered via TCP, and TCP packets are error checked by the operating system, not the network card.
Yes, this is something you can do with LibreOffice and some related tools.
(Your other option I guess would be Microsoft Office 365 Online, but I find - ironically perhaps - that their implementation of web and mobile "Office" to have poor compatibility with the desktop versions.)
It's actually very easy for the UK "spook team" as you call it, or British government in general: you just modify the law if necessary to include DNS proxy services, and then prosecute Cloudflare. The latter then has the choice between continuing to operate in the UK, accepting it has to filter DNS results, or taking its ball home.
The latter is not an option for CF, so they'd cave.
In some ways this might be the worst solution Mozilla could come up with as far as ensuring DNS integrity goes. They're centralizing it, and centralizing with parties that have a lot to lose if they fall foul of a government that doesn't want a free for all DNS.
ISPs haven't exactly been pushing IPv6, more tolerating its existence. Home router manufacturers generally don't enable it by default. Some operating system use the IPv6 "privacy extensions" which essentially grab a new IPv6 address for each outgoing connection, rather than linking your address to your MAC or DHCPv6 allocated address. Which incidentally is a horrible idea.
I would suggest to you the vast majority of downloads come from regular old IPv4 addresses.
I'd also suggest it doesn't really matter. Most of the time a single family will be using an IPv4 address, the "shared house full of people sharing one connection" and "oops I accidentally opened my Wifi" things are by far the minority of situations.
You mean "It's also a neutral for some iPhone buyers, since many, perhaps most of iPhone buyers, already have wireless headphones that they like and prefer to wired headphones, and only plan to listen to music via the headphones, so won't necessarily need an adapter"?
Adding the adapter does not harm iPhone buyers who have no plans to use wired audio equipment in the slightest.
Well, only if there's also a time slider so you can see a snapshot of what it looks like at a particular time and date.
Ideally, using "Inspect element" on the slider should mean you can extend the date range to, say, the future, and see what Earth will look like later on today, or even next week.
At the same time, the whole "Google is tracking me" stuff seems overblown. They're tracking some minor historical data and feeding it their into computers that determine what ads to show me, not selling my data to the Internet Research Agency to help Russian trolls identify me and piss me off.
No, that is what Slashdot is doing...
I have both, and TBH I use the Chromebook, despite being underpowered, more than the Ubuntu laptop(s) I have. I use the latter for stuff I can't do using the Chromebook.
Chromebooks are well supported, they're fast, they're lightweight, have tablet like battery lives, and are pleasant to use.
If Obama had said the same thing, then yes, it would be fair to assume he didn't understand anything at all. But he wouldn't have said the same thing.
If Obama had implemented a policy of cancelling the visas of asylum seekers fleeing Syria while they're en-route, then yes, liberals would have condemned it. But he wouldn't do that.
If Obama had described white nationalists/neo-nazis as "very fine people", and had appointed people with ties to these movements to his trusted inner circle of advisors, then yes, it would have shown terrible judgement and been worth condemning, and liberals would have done so. But that's not something Obama would have done.
If there were suspicions that a foreign government had assisted Obama in getting elected, and Obama had tried to do everything possible to hamper an investigation into that government's actions, and had even publicly sided with the leader of that government, praising him in public despite a history of horrific human rights abuses, and dismissing US intelligence on the subject, he would have been considered a deeply untrustworthy president, and liberals would have wanted nothing to do with him. But Obama didn't, and isn't that kind of person.
If Obama had implemented a policy of deterring asylum seekers by pretending a law existed requiring they apply for asylum at their port of entry, intentionally directing them at their port of entry to a different office, and then arresting them, taking their children, and placing their children in the care of agencies known to drug, torture, and otherwise abuse those children, Obama would be a deeply evil person and liberals would want him impeached. But he didn't and wouldn't.
The argument "You're only against it because Trump did it, you'd have been fine if Obama did it" is deeply stupid and offensive. Obama did some deeply horrible things, in fact liberals hated his immigration policies despite them being at least slightly logical (what is wrong with prioritizing undocumented immigrants who commit non-immigration related crimes if you're going to enforce immigration laws? Why was that bad? Why should we be focusing instead on deporting - and harming - those fleeing terror, war, and persecution?), but he never sank as low as Trump has.
If you can't justify something without pretending it wouldn't have been an issue if Obama did it, especially knowing damned well Obama wouldn't have done it anyway, maybe you can't justify it.
White flight referred to any group of white people leaving a city due to a concerted campaign based upon racism. There's a story of a realtor who hired a black woman to push a baby carriage around a neighborhood, specifically so that they could encourage white people to move out to the suburbs, making money from both the sale of the new house, and the sale of the old one.
Gentrification isn't caused by people moving into a city, or what people moving in is called; it's the redevelopment of an area in order to make it more attractive, with one of the side effects being that more people want to move there, so causing a rise in property values, so resulting in people with higher incomes than existing residents moving in.
Gentrification can be good or bad. It's good if most existing residents own their own homes. It's bad, and can destroy communities if most existing residents don't, because their rents rise, and they end up being unable to afford to live there any more.
You're seriously saying he didn't double down because a few hours after he did so he deleted the comments?
He most certainly did. He made the allegation. He was called on it. He added "Bet ya a signed dollar it's true".
That happened.
Yes, he apologized, and deleted the tweets concerned, but that doesn't change the fact he's an asshole who did an assholish thing, and he shouldn't have done it.
Why do you defend him all the time, regardless of how shitty his behavior is?
No they're not. You can't just claim that there are "two sides" to anything by inventing opinions of the "other side" so that it appears they're equally bad.
"OMG Trump is taking the children away from asylum seekers and putting them in facilities where he knows they're going to be tortured."
"Oh yeah? Well I didn't hear lieberaltards complain when Clinton was doing the exact same thing!"
"Actually, it was Obama who was the last President, he wasn't doing the exact same thing, and liberals were complaining loudly about ICE then too, which was being abusive but not to this extreme."
"Oh yeah, well, uh shut up libtard."
There's no great movement among the left for "States Rights". On occasion, you'll see the left pointing out that it's ludicrous for the right to claim it's in favor when it's trampling over, for example, state level pot legalization, but we're pretty much open about the fact that we want the federal government to work to improve the rights, welfare, and safety of all, and we don't see the states as being remotely good at that. In fact, we know structurally they'll never be able to do what needs to be done.
It's very normal, though it's becoming less normal. But that said, it's stupid, and it's not a feature. "Exclusive" is one of those terms like "Proprietary" that marketers think sells products, but actually makes them less desirable.
This isn't true.
Almost all areas have at least two ISPs, the telephone company and the cable company.
People keep arguing the latter has "exclusive monopoly rights" granted by the local governments, but that's not true either. That might have been true for a decade or two when the company started up, but since then those agreements have been invalidated.
But even if they did have monopoly rights, it wouldn't matter, because the monopoly was on cable TV, not on ISP services. Not even the old, obsolete, exclusive franchise agreements would have prevented new ISPs from setting up in any area.
The reality is that there usually just two ISPs in any area for a simple reason: they both already have infrastructure, whereas any new ISP is going to have to lay cable. And laying cable is phenomenally expensive.
There are things that can help such as local governments helping new ISPs have access to existing poles to hang wires from, rather than forcing them to bury it, but poles aren't everywhere, and those poles often belong to companies that have no desire to allow third parties access.
The other problem is it's easier for telecoms and cable operators to market their services. There used to be WISPs in my area, offering point to point WiMAX service. They disappeared. Why? Presumably because everyone had heard of AT&T and Comcast, they were already customers of both, whereas the WISPs would have had to do a major advertising campaign just to get noticed. Meanwhile AT&T and Comcast can simply ask you whether you want internet service whenever you move in to a new home and call them to get your TV or telephone hooked up. The WISPs you'd have to contact separately.
There are plenty of people who think the solution is "more competition" as if someone can just wave their wand and bring forth millions of miles of fiber optic cable. It's not that easy.
Even Google can't do it. Google. Think about that.
They have been fixed, just not in stock Android. ChromeOS runs Android apps as desktop apps, even in resizable windows. I have a 2:1 Chromebook and it is by far the better way to run Android apps, even allowing for the fact that many apps find concepts like "Arrow scrolling" (or even mousewheel scrolling) too much to handle.
I think Google doesn't want to lose control of ChromeOS as it did Android and that's why you're not seeing a push to put ChromeOS on tablets. But I'd definitely recommend anyone considering a 2:1 "Android" solution to consider a 2:1 Chromebook instead.
That's not the new problem. The new problem is that you're taking away the old solution to the old problem.
$7,000 a year isn't going to pay rent in most of the country. Plus, the US CoL is insane - to buy groceries in most of the country and go to the bank means either owning a car (looking at $10,000 a year in amortized costs, maintenance, and fuel, for something on the cheap end) or spending the entire day traveling. (When I've suggested this could be avoided by, you know, letting developers build high density/mixed use developments if they want, so that people, if they want, can live there, it's usually been replied to with howls of "YOU'RE FORCING ME TO RIDE BUSES" so it's a political non-starter, and will be for as long as people confuse choice with force, and think being forced to use one form of transportation is choice.) So $7000 minus $6-12,000 in rent, minus $12,000 in utilities (God forbid you live in Florida...), minus $10,000 in transportation, minus $2,500 in food... leaves someone unable to work with not a lot of money. Many will choose to spend $350 of that $7,000 on a shotgun instead, which they'll proceed to "eat".
Here's the big problem with UBI. It's a one-size-fits-all thing for something that won't fit. It's a proposal to replace all benefits, from unemployment through welfare to disability. Politicians will see reasons to cut it during times of high voluntary unemployment and will have pressures to increase it during times of high job shortages. Within a few years, the fact this model is broken because it assumes that people are unemployed solely due to work availability and prospective wages, rather than things beyond their control like disability or parenthood, is going to become readily apparent.
And how will that be fixed? The only way to fix it will end up being to reintroduce many of the benefits that UBI was supposed to replace, thus undermining the whole "We give everyone money and save in bureaucracy!" argument.
When I was in my 20s, I thought UBI was a good idea too (yes, it's not a new idea, although it wasn't something anyone was talking about, I genuinely thought I had come up with the idea myself!), but as you get older, and see how the world works, and that it's not simple, you realize it's not going to work as advertised.
It'll never be enough to live on, and it'll always be too high for those paying for it.
You remember when Al Gore said "I totally invented the Internet, yeah, invented. Suck on that Edison, my invention is way better than your's."?
Well, he didn't. He said:
What Gore was talking about at the time, and he deserves credit not ridicule for, is that he pushed through several initiatives through congress that took the Internet out of the academic/military context in which it was originally built, and made it available to everyone. The GP is indeed correct that what existed prior to Gore's involvement was heavily restricted - you couldn't use it (at least, not the TCP/IP routed real time network, there were other networks such as Usenet that became part of the Internet that existed outside of that) without permission, and the people who controlled it had wide latitude in throwing people out. Commercial activity was defacto banned, because it wasn't part of the military/academic usage that Arpanet was funded for.
One infamous early user who was kicked off for misusing it was Jerry Pournelle, the science fiction author and Byte columnist, who was kicked off Arpanet after being obnoxious to other sysadmins when they asked him to kindly stop mentioning this major military project in his public Byte column. He was kicked off both for being a dick, and for constantly using it as material for his outside activities.
Nope, the implication here is that citizens might make choices that other citizens - who Peskin represents - do not want them to make. This isn't about healthy eating or some other situation that would fit within the criteria you propose, it's about the fact that a minority that has control over the SF government absolutely hates, hates with a passion, newcomers, and wants to punish them for not being part of the existing community.
It's the same mentality that has someone post a "Welcome to America, now speak English" sticker on the back of their pick-up truck. Don't be fooled because the citizens doing this are more cosmopolitan than those who do the latter, it's pretty much the same mentality.
There are numerous reasons people pass laws. Clamping down on anti-social behavior is one, whether it's murder or spoiling the environment. Another, legitimate, reason is to ensure the maximum welfare for all, such as regulating food labeling or enabling standards so expectations can be set. Another is "for your own good", be it sugar taxes (where the taxes don't go into mitigation, I'd be fine with a sugar tax that subsidizes healthcare, that'd fall into the second category) or bans on drugs. And and a final example, the worst, is to punish "those people", be it Jim Crow at one extreme, or laws like this one on the other.
This is a case of the latter, not the penultimate, type of law on that list.
Absolutely. In the mean time, the same NIMBYs that have forced SF to refuse to build any new housing are trying to prevent the re-opening of closed restaurants.
NIMBYs have far, far, too much power in this country. They're why we can't have nice things - literally. There's a lot of pseudo-"environmental protection" laws that need reform to cover the real world - you shouldn't need permission to run trains on an existing rail line, and it should be relatively easy to build a block of apartments in an area zoned high density mixed use.
Even better, make the ticket $150, but add a $15 "convenience fee" for using the app. Then pretty much everyone will get the app.
No, I'm not joking. You know full well it's true.