So... probably not a bubble, unless the desire to move money around with no traceability ceases to be desireable
What you're looking for if you want something with no traceability is called "cash". Last I heard, dollar bills and coins didn't have lists of IP addresses of people who used them permanently engraved upon them.
What?? The Winklevoss twins are currently BILLIONAIRES because of their vision.
They are now, yes. They won't be on Thursday at 2.31pm EST. (They'll be respectable millionaires though I guess.)
The cashing out is going to be glorious. The entire Bitcoin network processing millions of transactions as millions of suckers try to exit their positions, at one person a second... makes bank runs look positively organized.
Yup. Also note that these people have "60 years combined experience" and have worked there for "their entire careers". Even allowing for a degree and some time looking for work, this means they're at the grand old age of... 55 at most?
Ooooooo 55, that's soooo old! That's not even a Baby Boomer, that's early Gen X.
I'm having difficulty with the entire premise of the question. I'm pretty sure 55 year olds can figure out their way around a Mac. Anyone that wasn't brought up on Unix might have problems with GNU/Linux systems, but TBH look at the threads on Slashdot concerning SystemD: A lot of people who have that experience are scared of pretty much any version of any distribution that's come out in the last few years because of change. Nonetheless, I think most get the hang of it.
My advice to the submitter: send them on some courses and give them some time to play around with whatever distribution of GNU/Linux your office uses. And stop being a patronizing git.
Most of these I agree with, but I fail to see why you'd want to fix this, but not fix sysvinit, which has always been a horrible kludge and has been "obsolete" (unable to deal with a world where networking, hot pluggable hardware, CPUs requiring complex thermal management, etc, are ubiquitous.)
Despite the complaints that systemd is somehow the "wrong" way to do this because it's a large collection of integrated tools which is totally unlike Unix (LOLWUT?), the only other place you could put all this crap would be in the kernel itself.
sysvinit needed to be deprecated. And it was, most distributions were moving away from it because it no longer worked, but none of the replacements were particularly great either.
The worst I can say about systemd is that it's the best init replacement ever created. That's not a complement, it's just a very low bar. The lack of recognition that it's a low bar is why we have these stupid "systemd is why we have Trump" discussions here.
Is this actually a problem? Outside of embedded systems, I can't think of a single set of circumstances in which I'd want to replace the system start up subsystem. And you're not really going to be loading GNOME or some other independent package that requires systemd on an embedded system.
Have you read or watched the news AT ALL in the last two months?
The common theme is not "Some woman made a complaint about something innocent and that ruined a man", it's "Some men harassed, and often assaulted, women, and sometimes men, over a period of decades, and HR assisted those men and covered it up."
Even if he's proven innocent in the court, even if the accuser retracts and says she lied, it doesn't matter. He will always have that stigma, he will be turned down for future education, jobs, friends and family will abandon him.
It virtually never goes to court. And until a few months ago, men could be pretty openly accused of virtually everything under the sun, and remain influential. The complaints against Roger Ailes, Keven Spacey, Bill O'Reilly and the yet to be touched director of certain X Men films, went on for decades, often leaking into the public, and nothing, NOTHING, was done.
The news is full of people being outed as harassers, and usually suffering the consequences. I'm struggling, however, to think of a single instance where the definition of harassment is as all encompassing as the one you're using. From Roger Ailes to Kevin Spacey the acts were genuinely threatening to those who suffered them.
I'm tired of reading paranoid Slashdotters who think that people are being fired for asking co-workers out or accidentally brushing against a clothed bottom. That's not happening.
Hell, if you'd followed the news this year, you'd know that not only is it not happening, but getting an HR department to take acts of the severity we've seen from Ailes/Weinstein takes more than just a complaint: worse still, most of the time, the HR department will help the aggressor. It takes a large group of those victimized talking to journalists at a respected newspaper to companies to act.
I'm baffled as to why you'd think "You might want to watch the news sometime" would confirm your view of the world. The news is showing the extreme opposite of what you claim.
Interesting. So because my wife thinks I'm hot, anything she allows me to do with her she must also allow Roger Ailes to do to her?
Yes, women get to pick who touches them. Just like men do. You are not entitled to violate other people's space, and while it may be unfair you're not as "attractive" as someone who a specific woman consents to have sex with, take that up with the universe, rather than a woman who finds you threatening.
That's where my thoughts have been heading too. We always presume that the brain's "picture" of reality is based upon source - vision = eyeballs, audio = ears, etc - but it's processing a lot of information, it's certainly not hard to believe that it combines the information it gets from multiple sources.
Most of the stories are anti-Bitcoin. If Slashdot ever posts "Bitcoin price stable for over six months, retailers flock to adopt new currency", then they'll be publishing a positive story about Bitcoin.
"Bitcoin's value fluctuates by 1000% in a single month" is objectively terrible news for Bitcoin, even if it's great news for speculators who got in early.
You have to take into account that this isn't a unique situations. If billionaires start dumping all of their dollars they could tank the whole US economy
Very few, if any, billionaires have a bunch of bank accounts whose balances add up billions of dollars, or a mattress with a billion dollars under it. Billionaires usually have the bulk of their wealth in assets.
In order to "dump dollars" they'd have to sell their assets first. They'd then, uh, have to buy assets (otherwise they wouldn't be dumping anything!) They'd have problems, but they wouldn't tank the economy.
What the fuck is this? It's too onerous on ISPs to tell people the price of the product they're buying? HOW THE FUCK ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO CHARGE PEOPLE IF THEY DON'T KNOW THE FUCKING PRICE? And it's too onerous for ISPs to tell people about data limits? REALLY? REALLY?
Here's an idea: when the Democrats inevitably win, for once maybe instead of merely slightly going in the right direction, they actually go further and implement regulations that aren't just fair, but punish ISPs for lobbying for this bullshit.
I mean: ISPs will be:
1. Required to do free peering.
2. Must provide, among other services, a basic FCC specified service at a set price with a fixed installation fee. Initially 1Mbps up/down for $10 a month with a $50 installation fee.
3. Legally obliged to provide service within two weeks of any request in their designated service area, or face fines.
3.1 Local governments specifically allowed by FCC to provide service to customers not any active ISP's service area.
4. Must tier service only by bandwidth and nothing else.
4.1. No data caps or overages. Throttling only allowed to temporarily deal with network congestion and must not lead to worse service than the basic FCC mandated plan.
5. Must not filter any traffic except for security purposes, and those filters should be under the control of the customer.
6. Must allow customer to provide their own equipment, without additional charges.
Yes, they'll howl. Yes, they'll probably donate millions to the GOP. But the Democrats wouldn't just implement this, they'd warn the ISPs that if they lobby the GOP to alleviate them, the vice will be tightened even further when the Democrats get back into power.
The current FCC, thanks to lobbying, is telling ISPs they can hide the truth, hide things they know about. That's not acceptable. We need to go further than simply rolling that back, we need to punish those who ask for it.
I'm not sure I want an Oraclephone, the idea brings visions of 1990s talk plans coupled with some large, hard to use, device that only works efficiently if you're a trained professional.
In the sense of "They're not going to not get their money's worth", you're correct that there's no risk. Steam are reporting, however, that the fluctuations are causing direct problems in terms of clawing back the right amount from customers:
Historically, the value of Bitcoin has been volatile, but the degree of volatility has become extreme in the last few months, losing as much as 25% in value over a period of days. This creates a problem for customers trying to purchase games with Bitcoin. When checking out on Steam, a customer will transfer x amount of Bitcoin for the cost of the game, plus y amount of Bitcoin to cover the transaction fee charged by the Bitcoin network. The value of Bitcoin is only guaranteed for a certain period of time so if the transaction doesnâ(TM)t complete within that window of time, then the amount of Bitcoin needed to cover the transaction can change. The amount it can change has been increasing recently to a point where it can be significantly different.
The normal resolution for this is to either refund the original payment to the user, or ask the user to transfer additional funds to cover the remaining balance. In both these cases, the user is hit with the Bitcoin network transaction fee again. This year, weâ(TM)ve seen increasing number of customers get into this state. With the transaction fee being so high right now, it is not feasible to refund or ask the customer to transfer the missing balance (which itself runs the risk of underpayment again, depending on how much the value of Bitcoin changes while the Bitcoin network processes the additional transfer).
So, customers are getting routinely (unintentionally) ripped off, given one price, then forced to either pay a higher price, or accept less money back than they originally paid.
That is overall a risk to the business, as that directly damages the business's reputation and the degree to which anyone wants to do business with them.
The system is failing. And the BTC advocates are so enthusiastic about the gains they made by treating BTC as an investment vehicle that they aren't addressing the fact it's completely failing as a currency. And, you know, it's going to fail as an investment vehicle too if it has no legitimate use.
Yeah, just like how you blamed MRAs right before saying that
MRAs are not a men's rights movement in their current form, they're just a bunch of anti-feminists.
An actual men's rights movement would fight toxic assumptions about men and how men should behave, rather than encourage them. An actual men's rights movement would fight for better parental leave for men, not against child support.
The MRA's are a toxic group that's harming, rather than benefiting, men. They're not what AmiMojo or myself are referring to, and if you think they are, you're not paying attention.
No, he doesn't. Because it isn't true. But there's a reason he believes it.
You, I, and him are members of a privileged class (we're all men, and for all I know all white, though I can't say that for definite.) We had no choice in the matter, we were born one day with the right wedding tackle, and for reasons that remain somewhat difficult to understand, we had it a little easier than people who didn't.
This was not our fault. Like I said, we had no choice in the matter. We won the chromosodal (if that's a word, I guess it is now) lottery. We never even willfully entered it.
But that wasn't the end of it. Because while Feminists and others fighting for civil rights keep throwing around this term "privilege", you, I, and most of the other men (those of us who do not have surnames like "Romney", "Trump", "Rockefeller", etc) certainly don't feel very "privileged". We had to work hard to get our jobs. We have bosses or CEOs or whatever (Some of whom are women!) that are happy to fire us at will just to protect their bonuses. We're working hard, stressed, insulted, and not having a great time of it, thank you very much. We don't feel "privileged".
And you respond and tell me the definition of "privilege", and stop right there, because I already know, I'm on your side, I usually spend most of my time laying into these MRA idiots and like you I've been modded down repeatedly for spewing "SJW bullshit" like "Maybe if lots of women accuse someone they work with of sexual assault, we should, you know, at least maybe investigate it?" or stuff like that. It's just a really bad choice of word.
But that's not all. Because we're men, we also have some profoundly negative things to deal with that women aren't. You know the term, "Toxic masculinity" (which also seems to be a term widely misunderstood, like "privilege", but I think there's less excuse there.) No emotions. Obliged to defend the ridiculous, to fight for it even. Being female might have some seriously shitty consequences but at least they're allowed to cry about it.
So what happens? Well, a lot of men seem to handle it badly, and that's what we're seeing now. They're taking the notion that there's "privilege" as being an attack on them personally. They're dealing with awful toxic shit, while being told how bad "the other side" has it. If you're limping into a hospital with a broken leg, in agonizing pain, you probably are going to resent it if everyone's crowded around a kid with terminal cancer and ignoring your leg.
And in that environment, I can really see men being easily mislead by those who want to hold on to their power about their situation.
It's really, really, obvious right now that the GP's point is false. Like overwhelmingly so. I mean, every other news story is about a man who got away with sexually harassing, and even sexually assaulting, women with impunity for years, their employers not merely knowing all about it, but systemically helping them. Women who complained contemporaneously didn't bring down those men, they were either shunned or, if they were really, really, lucky they got a cash settlement.
But... for years he's been told the opposite. He's heard his employer's sexual harassment policy so he knows there are consequences. Women who were harassed and reported it were treated with suspicion. Men who suffered the rare consequences of such policies didn't exactly run around confessing that they assault women, they instead came up with conspiracy theories and people like the GP believed it, because, well, people fear terrible consequences happening to them due to unproven allegations, and anyway, Fred from accounting was always so nice, he never seemed like the kind of guy who'd put a hand up anyone's skirt, I mean, I wouldn't, why would he?
Several years ago, I heard a Feminist argue that men do need a men's rights movement. Not like the MRA movement of today, which is better described as an anti-WRM, but someone who'd fight for things like male parental leave rights,
Pre-20th Century classical, or just Pre-20th Century + Classical? If the former, then yeah, I don't think it makes sense.
The latter isn't that unlikely, there's only a handful of songs from the 19th Century that survive into the 21st, and looking at what's still listened to today shows essentially declining interest the older songs become. Tune to an "Oldies" station (a station that specializes in playing stuff just for nostalgia's sake!), and you'll get music back to the 1970s, occasional songs from the 1960s, and once in a blue moon stuff from the 1950s. If you hear anything older than that, that's because they're playing Christmas music. Jazz seems to be a genuine exception to the rule, but Jazz listeners are a group unto themselves.
I think the problem is that the "three minute song" format (whatever you call it) has always spoken to a specific generation or two, and as time goes on, the music dies out because of that.
Why not classical? Because it's rarely aimed at a mass audience (outside of movie themes, perhaps), and doesn't follow a "fashion" in terms of how its structured. That is, Shostakovich is as different from Prokofiev as he is from Beethoven. And I guess, like Jazz, it as a specific audience that's a group unto themselves to a certain extent.
I see Shostakovich being played three Centuries from now. Eminem? Beyonce? Probably not, but it's too early to tell. The Beatles? Even they seem to be becoming obscure, and they were once the most popular group on Earth. Music from the Rolling Stones? Maybe... or maybe Percey Sledge or The Righteous Brothers will outlast them - well, When a man loves a woman or Unchained Melody anyway.
This. I enjoyed the first one, The Best Chris is a hell of a lot better than Shatner even when he's just imitating what Shatner was trying to bring to the character. The second was OK, people who think of it badly tend to be comparing it to TWOK, which is one of the best sci-fi/action movies ever made, of course it doesn't stand up to that!
The third... I was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt, but I lost it at the "Destroy the enemy using 20th Century Popular Music" part. The entire thing felt like it was written by that teacher you had when you were a kid that was always trying to be hip and cool and "down with" the kids. It was embarrassing.
Which was a shame because I liked how the movie started.
1. You can decide you're going to prioritize preventing the government from "controlling" currency, even if that means switching to a nonsensical "currency" whose value fluctuates between dramatic extremes and makes billionaires and paupers of people simply due to luck. Almost nobody ends up financially where they are due to luck. The government will continue to have the same problems you're concerned about, can still prosecute you for unfair reasons, can still benefit those with power and harm those without.
2. You can decide you're going to prioritize fixing the government by improving accountability. The currency remains more or less stable, with its value fluctuating only slightly, generally losing value by a tiny amount each year. Fewer people owe their financial status to luck. The government is less likely to prosecute you for unfair reasons, and less likely to benefit those with power and harm those without.
The Bitcoin way is (1). It's stupid, it's papering over a problem and pretending it only affects one thing. Worse, the cure is worse than the disease.
It might help explain what's going on, but it wouldn't be more conclusive in terms of whether people can or can't "hear" the thud, which is pretty much only going to be shown by self reporting.
I'm a little shocked, I went in with skepticism and "heard" it too. I'm intelligent enough to know I'm not really hearing anything, but... my brain certainly thinks I am.
The majority of the citizens of the United States did not actually come down in favor of any specific person being President at the last election. In terms of share of vote, Clinton came first (though with fewer votes than 50%); Trump was in second place.
Trump won because the system we have is based upon the support of states, not the support of citizens.
You say that like it's a bad thing. The more complex the government, the less I want it to be able to do. It isn't acting in our interests, after all.
That's great, but given most of us want a government that does act in our interests, and recognize the need for any effective government to execute long term policies, I'd rather fix the accountability issues, and I suspect most people feel that way.
It doesn't really work that way: for the high up roles, he generally needs the consent of the senate to appoint "who works for him". For the lower roles, he doesn't get a say at all. That's why you see Senate hearings on everything from Cabinet roles to the CIA director. From Wikipedia (which is sourced if you really want to go down that rabbit hole):
The Director is a civilian or a general/flag officer of the armed forces nominated by the President, with the concurring or nonconcurring recommendation from the DNI, and must be confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate. [My emphasis]
Until recently Roku didn't sell content, it was 100% neutral. Even now, the only content it "sells" it does in ad-subsidized form. So from Amazon's point of view, it's no more a competitor than Dell, a seller of computers that can run web browsers, is.
Slashdot Mirror
What you're looking for if you want something with no traceability is called "cash". Last I heard, dollar bills and coins didn't have lists of IP addresses of people who used them permanently engraved upon them.
They are now, yes. They won't be on Thursday at 2.31pm EST. (They'll be respectable millionaires though I guess.)
The cashing out is going to be glorious. The entire Bitcoin network processing millions of transactions as millions of suckers try to exit their positions, at one person a second... makes bank runs look positively organized.
Yup. Also note that these people have "60 years combined experience" and have worked there for "their entire careers". Even allowing for a degree and some time looking for work, this means they're at the grand old age of... 55 at most?
Ooooooo 55, that's soooo old! That's not even a Baby Boomer, that's early Gen X.
I'm having difficulty with the entire premise of the question. I'm pretty sure 55 year olds can figure out their way around a Mac. Anyone that wasn't brought up on Unix might have problems with GNU/Linux systems, but TBH look at the threads on Slashdot concerning SystemD: A lot of people who have that experience are scared of pretty much any version of any distribution that's come out in the last few years because of change. Nonetheless, I think most get the hang of it.
My advice to the submitter: send them on some courses and give them some time to play around with whatever distribution of GNU/Linux your office uses. And stop being a patronizing git.
Most of these I agree with, but I fail to see why you'd want to fix this, but not fix sysvinit, which has always been a horrible kludge and has been "obsolete" (unable to deal with a world where networking, hot pluggable hardware, CPUs requiring complex thermal management, etc, are ubiquitous.)
Despite the complaints that systemd is somehow the "wrong" way to do this because it's a large collection of integrated tools which is totally unlike Unix (LOLWUT?), the only other place you could put all this crap would be in the kernel itself.
sysvinit needed to be deprecated. And it was, most distributions were moving away from it because it no longer worked, but none of the replacements were particularly great either.
The worst I can say about systemd is that it's the best init replacement ever created. That's not a complement, it's just a very low bar. The lack of recognition that it's a low bar is why we have these stupid "systemd is why we have Trump" discussions here.
Is this actually a problem? Outside of embedded systems, I can't think of a single set of circumstances in which I'd want to replace the system start up subsystem. And you're not really going to be loading GNOME or some other independent package that requires systemd on an embedded system.
Have you read or watched the news AT ALL in the last two months?
The common theme is not "Some woman made a complaint about something innocent and that ruined a man", it's "Some men harassed, and often assaulted, women, and sometimes men, over a period of decades, and HR assisted those men and covered it up."
It virtually never goes to court. And until a few months ago, men could be pretty openly accused of virtually everything under the sun, and remain influential. The complaints against Roger Ailes, Keven Spacey, Bill O'Reilly and the yet to be touched director of certain X Men films, went on for decades, often leaking into the public, and nothing, NOTHING, was done.
The news is full of people being outed as harassers, and usually suffering the consequences. I'm struggling, however, to think of a single instance where the definition of harassment is as all encompassing as the one you're using. From Roger Ailes to Kevin Spacey the acts were genuinely threatening to those who suffered them.
I'm tired of reading paranoid Slashdotters who think that people are being fired for asking co-workers out or accidentally brushing against a clothed bottom. That's not happening.
Hell, if you'd followed the news this year, you'd know that not only is it not happening, but getting an HR department to take acts of the severity we've seen from Ailes/Weinstein takes more than just a complaint: worse still, most of the time, the HR department will help the aggressor. It takes a large group of those victimized talking to journalists at a respected newspaper to companies to act.
I'm baffled as to why you'd think "You might want to watch the news sometime" would confirm your view of the world. The news is showing the extreme opposite of what you claim.
Interesting. So because my wife thinks I'm hot, anything she allows me to do with her she must also allow Roger Ailes to do to her?
Yes, women get to pick who touches them. Just like men do. You are not entitled to violate other people's space, and while it may be unfair you're not as "attractive" as someone who a specific woman consents to have sex with, take that up with the universe, rather than a woman who finds you threatening.
hunter2. You're welcome.
That's where my thoughts have been heading too. We always presume that the brain's "picture" of reality is based upon source - vision = eyeballs, audio = ears, etc - but it's processing a lot of information, it's certainly not hard to believe that it combines the information it gets from multiple sources.
Most of the stories are anti-Bitcoin. If Slashdot ever posts "Bitcoin price stable for over six months, retailers flock to adopt new currency", then they'll be publishing a positive story about Bitcoin.
"Bitcoin's value fluctuates by 1000% in a single month" is objectively terrible news for Bitcoin, even if it's great news for speculators who got in early.
Very few, if any, billionaires have a bunch of bank accounts whose balances add up billions of dollars, or a mattress with a billion dollars under it. Billionaires usually have the bulk of their wealth in assets.
In order to "dump dollars" they'd have to sell their assets first. They'd then, uh, have to buy assets (otherwise they wouldn't be dumping anything!) They'd have problems, but they wouldn't tank the economy.
What the fuck is this? It's too onerous on ISPs to tell people the price of the product they're buying? HOW THE FUCK ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO CHARGE PEOPLE IF THEY DON'T KNOW THE FUCKING PRICE? And it's too onerous for ISPs to tell people about data limits? REALLY? REALLY?
Here's an idea: when the Democrats inevitably win, for once maybe instead of merely slightly going in the right direction, they actually go further and implement regulations that aren't just fair, but punish ISPs for lobbying for this bullshit.
I mean: ISPs will be:
1. Required to do free peering.
2. Must provide, among other services, a basic FCC specified service at a set price with a fixed installation fee. Initially 1Mbps up/down for $10 a month with a $50 installation fee.
3. Legally obliged to provide service within two weeks of any request in their designated service area, or face fines.
3.1 Local governments specifically allowed by FCC to provide service to customers not any active ISP's service area. 4. Must tier service only by bandwidth and nothing else.
4.1. No data caps or overages. Throttling only allowed to temporarily deal with network congestion and must not lead to worse service than the basic FCC mandated plan.
5. Must not filter any traffic except for security purposes, and those filters should be under the control of the customer.
6. Must allow customer to provide their own equipment, without additional charges.
Yes, they'll howl. Yes, they'll probably donate millions to the GOP. But the Democrats wouldn't just implement this, they'd warn the ISPs that if they lobby the GOP to alleviate them, the vice will be tightened even further when the Democrats get back into power.
The current FCC, thanks to lobbying, is telling ISPs they can hide the truth, hide things they know about. That's not acceptable. We need to go further than simply rolling that back, we need to punish those who ask for it.
I'm not sure I want an Oraclephone, the idea brings visions of 1990s talk plans coupled with some large, hard to use, device that only works efficiently if you're a trained professional.
In the sense of "They're not going to not get their money's worth", you're correct that there's no risk. Steam are reporting, however, that the fluctuations are causing direct problems in terms of clawing back the right amount from customers:
So, customers are getting routinely (unintentionally) ripped off, given one price, then forced to either pay a higher price, or accept less money back than they originally paid.
That is overall a risk to the business, as that directly damages the business's reputation and the degree to which anyone wants to do business with them.
The system is failing. And the BTC advocates are so enthusiastic about the gains they made by treating BTC as an investment vehicle that they aren't addressing the fact it's completely failing as a currency. And, you know, it's going to fail as an investment vehicle too if it has no legitimate use.
MRAs are not a men's rights movement in their current form, they're just a bunch of anti-feminists.
An actual men's rights movement would fight toxic assumptions about men and how men should behave, rather than encourage them. An actual men's rights movement would fight for better parental leave for men, not against child support.
The MRA's are a toxic group that's harming, rather than benefiting, men. They're not what AmiMojo or myself are referring to, and if you think they are, you're not paying attention.
No, he doesn't. Because it isn't true. But there's a reason he believes it.
You, I, and him are members of a privileged class (we're all men, and for all I know all white, though I can't say that for definite.) We had no choice in the matter, we were born one day with the right wedding tackle, and for reasons that remain somewhat difficult to understand, we had it a little easier than people who didn't.
This was not our fault. Like I said, we had no choice in the matter. We won the chromosodal (if that's a word, I guess it is now) lottery. We never even willfully entered it.
But that wasn't the end of it. Because while Feminists and others fighting for civil rights keep throwing around this term "privilege", you, I, and most of the other men (those of us who do not have surnames like "Romney", "Trump", "Rockefeller", etc) certainly don't feel very "privileged". We had to work hard to get our jobs. We have bosses or CEOs or whatever (Some of whom are women!) that are happy to fire us at will just to protect their bonuses. We're working hard, stressed, insulted, and not having a great time of it, thank you very much. We don't feel "privileged".
And you respond and tell me the definition of "privilege", and stop right there, because I already know, I'm on your side, I usually spend most of my time laying into these MRA idiots and like you I've been modded down repeatedly for spewing "SJW bullshit" like "Maybe if lots of women accuse someone they work with of sexual assault, we should, you know, at least maybe investigate it?" or stuff like that. It's just a really bad choice of word.
But that's not all. Because we're men, we also have some profoundly negative things to deal with that women aren't. You know the term, "Toxic masculinity" (which also seems to be a term widely misunderstood, like "privilege", but I think there's less excuse there.) No emotions. Obliged to defend the ridiculous, to fight for it even. Being female might have some seriously shitty consequences but at least they're allowed to cry about it.
So what happens? Well, a lot of men seem to handle it badly, and that's what we're seeing now. They're taking the notion that there's "privilege" as being an attack on them personally. They're dealing with awful toxic shit, while being told how bad "the other side" has it. If you're limping into a hospital with a broken leg, in agonizing pain, you probably are going to resent it if everyone's crowded around a kid with terminal cancer and ignoring your leg.
And in that environment, I can really see men being easily mislead by those who want to hold on to their power about their situation.
It's really, really, obvious right now that the GP's point is false. Like overwhelmingly so. I mean, every other news story is about a man who got away with sexually harassing, and even sexually assaulting, women with impunity for years, their employers not merely knowing all about it, but systemically helping them. Women who complained contemporaneously didn't bring down those men, they were either shunned or, if they were really, really, lucky they got a cash settlement.
But... for years he's been told the opposite. He's heard his employer's sexual harassment policy so he knows there are consequences. Women who were harassed and reported it were treated with suspicion. Men who suffered the rare consequences of such policies didn't exactly run around confessing that they assault women, they instead came up with conspiracy theories and people like the GP believed it, because, well, people fear terrible consequences happening to them due to unproven allegations, and anyway, Fred from accounting was always so nice, he never seemed like the kind of guy who'd put a hand up anyone's skirt, I mean, I wouldn't, why would he?
Several years ago, I heard a Feminist argue that men do need a men's rights movement. Not like the MRA movement of today, which is better described as an anti-WRM, but someone who'd fight for things like male parental leave rights,
Pre-20th Century classical, or just Pre-20th Century + Classical? If the former, then yeah, I don't think it makes sense.
The latter isn't that unlikely, there's only a handful of songs from the 19th Century that survive into the 21st, and looking at what's still listened to today shows essentially declining interest the older songs become. Tune to an "Oldies" station (a station that specializes in playing stuff just for nostalgia's sake!), and you'll get music back to the 1970s, occasional songs from the 1960s, and once in a blue moon stuff from the 1950s. If you hear anything older than that, that's because they're playing Christmas music. Jazz seems to be a genuine exception to the rule, but Jazz listeners are a group unto themselves.
I think the problem is that the "three minute song" format (whatever you call it) has always spoken to a specific generation or two, and as time goes on, the music dies out because of that.
Why not classical? Because it's rarely aimed at a mass audience (outside of movie themes, perhaps), and doesn't follow a "fashion" in terms of how its structured. That is, Shostakovich is as different from Prokofiev as he is from Beethoven. And I guess, like Jazz, it as a specific audience that's a group unto themselves to a certain extent.
I see Shostakovich being played three Centuries from now. Eminem? Beyonce? Probably not, but it's too early to tell. The Beatles? Even they seem to be becoming obscure, and they were once the most popular group on Earth. Music from the Rolling Stones? Maybe... or maybe Percey Sledge or The Righteous Brothers will outlast them - well, When a man loves a woman or Unchained Melody anyway.
This. I enjoyed the first one, The Best Chris is a hell of a lot better than Shatner even when he's just imitating what Shatner was trying to bring to the character. The second was OK, people who think of it badly tend to be comparing it to TWOK, which is one of the best sci-fi/action movies ever made, of course it doesn't stand up to that!
The third... I was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt, but I lost it at the "Destroy the enemy using 20th Century Popular Music" part. The entire thing felt like it was written by that teacher you had when you were a kid that was always trying to be hip and cool and "down with" the kids. It was embarrassing.
Which was a shame because I liked how the movie started.
The two alternatives available.
1. You can decide you're going to prioritize preventing the government from "controlling" currency, even if that means switching to a nonsensical "currency" whose value fluctuates between dramatic extremes and makes billionaires and paupers of people simply due to luck. Almost nobody ends up financially where they are due to luck. The government will continue to have the same problems you're concerned about, can still prosecute you for unfair reasons, can still benefit those with power and harm those without.
2. You can decide you're going to prioritize fixing the government by improving accountability. The currency remains more or less stable, with its value fluctuating only slightly, generally losing value by a tiny amount each year. Fewer people owe their financial status to luck. The government is less likely to prosecute you for unfair reasons, and less likely to benefit those with power and harm those without.
The Bitcoin way is (1). It's stupid, it's papering over a problem and pretending it only affects one thing. Worse, the cure is worse than the disease.
The correct thing to do is (2).
It might help explain what's going on, but it wouldn't be more conclusive in terms of whether people can or can't "hear" the thud, which is pretty much only going to be shown by self reporting.
I'm a little shocked, I went in with skepticism and "heard" it too. I'm intelligent enough to know I'm not really hearing anything, but... my brain certainly thinks I am.
The majority of the citizens of the United States did not actually come down in favor of any specific person being President at the last election. In terms of share of vote, Clinton came first (though with fewer votes than 50%); Trump was in second place.
Trump won because the system we have is based upon the support of states, not the support of citizens.
That's great, but given most of us want a government that does act in our interests, and recognize the need for any effective government to execute long term policies, I'd rather fix the accountability issues, and I suspect most people feel that way.
Until recently Roku didn't sell content, it was 100% neutral. Even now, the only content it "sells" it does in ad-subsidized form. So from Amazon's point of view, it's no more a competitor than Dell, a seller of computers that can run web browsers, is.