So... they have a system for fraud detection, but you can totally tell that it's not based on IP or location because if it were then it would effect a bunch of people. But we can dismiss the experience of the bunch of people in this thread because... there are not millions of us? How many people do you think read Slashdot? Let alone who browse comments at -1? This is a pretty good showing.
I'm sure that Google has managed it so that it bans only a tolerable number of people, not enough to cause a ruckus. I expect that most people who use gmail do it through webmail rather than imap, most people who use gmail probably don't move around all that much and when they do it probably isn't very far, most people who use gmail and do run into a problem probably manage to resolve it at the partial lockout stage rather than the full lockout stage. So what? This does not mean that it does not happen, and it's doesn't mean that it doesn't happen in this way - via ip geolocation. It is the most reasonable explanation, and it fits the data. You've made a wild leap to declare yourself correct on this while offering no alternative explanation.
It's not many, and they're not doing very well as a rule. Link. Japan is the only real oddball on that list and I'm sure there's a very interesting explanation for that, but I don't know what it is.
There's no fixed limit, as you say, but there's a fuzzy limit of approximately 100% of GDP. This is usually around the point when investors start to get nervous with most countries. We're over that now, but being the largest economy in the world and having so much tied in to our economy gives us more leeway than most countries get. Still, our debt is as high as it can realistically be before we start running into some rather harsh consequences in terms of interest rates.
We're not arguing about one person, there are a bunch just in this thread. Google does make some allowances for movement, more so if you use their webmail than if you just use imap, but it does indeed happen. Probably to some large portion of those millions of people every day that you're talking about.
Did you read the other recent story about net neutrality on the chopping block? Your expectations might be a little off.
There might be a little silver lining in that though: most of the fake news people are small scale bloggers and the like, not people who can afford to pay extra for a fast lane. Losing net neutrality may curtail the fake news stories a little bit.
I believe I was quite clear: "This touches on a complex issue: can equality be achieved by pursuing advocacy of one group over another, even if the promoted group is started from a disadvantaged position?" It is entirely possible that the whole can cooperatively agree that one group is disadvantaged, and can further agree that promoting said group, to the exclusion of others, is the road to equality. I raised the point that this may not be the right path. Thus if your interests are equality, rather than grabbing everything you can for yourself, it might be in your interests to think a little harder on the subject.
The whole bit about governance was something you brought up, I don't know why. I'm done with your insults though, you can argue with yourself if you want.
As the person above you said, an IP address is not just a random number. IP geolocation may not be reliable enough to be admissible in court, but that doesn't matter in this case. It's a real thing and is probably what Google is using.
It's a Japanese VPN with a single server that you're connecting through each time? I use a VPN with a lot of servers but I only have a few of them authorized for my gmail account. This is easy to do - Google locks you out and imap stops working, so you have to log in via their webmail. That's it. Once you use their webmail once then the address* is authorized for your account. If you switch too many times before you authorize though, then they lock you out totally. I think. I'm not entirely sure what triggers a total lockout, but that seems to be it.
*Probably not a specific IP address, but a range of addresses associated with your geographic region.
I think that was just an expression, there are many high profile examples of pardons without proceeding through any kind of due process. Scooter Libby is maybe the most recent example. He probably meant "won't" - "I won't pardon someone who hasn't gone before a court and presented themselves..."
Don't bet on it. I've lost access to at least four google accounts when I've moved, apparently they didn't like the change in my IP address. No credit card involved.
Also lost access to a yahoo account for an unknown reason. I had the login and password, but some years after I started the account they spontaneously started requiring the use of that security question for which I always fill in random characters. They gave me an option to recover my password, but no option to recover the security question answer.
Free accounts really shouldn't relied on. I still use them, but I have my own domain and associated email for the more important stuff.
What points? All you've really said is that your notion of a republic is one of competitive bargaining, in that individual groups should advocate for their own best interests. So I guess feminists would look to promote women and there'd be some other group, meninists, who would look to promote men and we'd all just have to hope that would work itself out once they had gotten tired of fighting.
That sounds terrible. Competition is by no means part and parcel of representative government, we still operate under the notion of cooperative problem solving even if special interests have weaseled their way in to an alarming degree. Elected representatives are there to ensure that their constituents are a part of this cooperative effort, in principle they are not there to grab whatever they can. In principle.
A store which allows you to donate at checkout is not a charity. This bundle is no different from the standard ones that Humble offers: you can choose where your money goes, but by default 15% goes to the charity of the moment, 65% goes to the publisher, and Humble keeps the other 20%. That's more than what they used to keep.
To their credit, allowing the customer to choose where the money goes is very progressive. But making a donation at checkout is something that many many stores do, my grocery store does that, and it's a pretty safe assumption that most people just go with the default distribution.
No, it's not the same. The whole point is that advocating towards a goal of equity is not necessarily accomplished by promoting a disadvantaged group, when it's done to the exclusion of others. In that case, it would not represent a "positive change."
That's disingenuous, "positive change" is good by definition. The question is whether advocacy for one group, exclusively, can lead to equality.
As for why it's the secondary definition: definitions in the dictionary are listed in order of usage, they don't have anything to do with one another. The first definition is the most common usage of the word, the second definition is the next most common, etc.
Well you've kinda hit the nail on the head there, it's that second definition that the grandparent is complaining about. This touches on a complex issue: can equality be achieved by pursuing advocacy of one group over another, even if the promoted group is started from a disadvantaged position?
I'm not going to try to argue this, there's a lot to be said about it, but just stating that "feminism is about promoting equality" or "feminism is inherently sexist" is not a complete description.
I see a lot of recommendations for Thinkpads here, and that's certainly a good option if you have a price ceiling, but in my view Toughbooks are the best there is. Specifically their semi-rugged line (what used to be their business rugged line). They're expensive, even more expensive than Macbooks, but the build quality is the best I've seen of all laptops and the peace of mind that you get from the added durability (including water proofing) is hard to price.
Despite being resolutely business focused, they've finally gotten around to releasing a model with a discreet GPU. And it has one of those fast-disappearing user-replaceable batteries. (two, if you replace the optical drive with a second battery)
The only criticism I have is that Panasonic seems to be wedded to Windows. I've had a little trouble with some driver related things in Linux, and that discreet GPU that I mentioned above is an AMD GPU... Not a big deal, but a nuisance. Still totally worth it.
There's only been one proper government shut down in the last twenty years. I was using the term figuratively here as the FCC isn't technically shutting down, it just isn't doing its job. This isn't typical.
What the hell is this? Yes the future FCC may be different from the current one, but we still have a current FCC. The government can't just shut down for two months after an election.
This is the same logic they used to block the supreme court nomination, and is wrong for the same reason.
I don't think I need to read those things, none of those have to do with the subject at hand. The subject being whether a group as a whole should be held responsible for it's fringe elements.
You're saying that because he was a fringe actor we shouldn't equate his actions with the right as a whole? That's fine and all, but it does go both ways.
It's the same mistake that a lot of Facebook users make: it's a public forum which is designed to appear private. When everyone who comments on your posts is someone you know, it's easy to think you can make a joke as you would in private company among people who know you.
The solution, as always, is to never use Facebook... It gets kind tired to just keep saying that over and over again though, every time a story like this comes up. I'm going to just start shrugging and dismissively saying "Facebook problems" whenever Facebook ruins yet another person's life. There's only so many times you can warn people away from that kind of stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
So... they have a system for fraud detection, but you can totally tell that it's not based on IP or location because if it were then it would effect a bunch of people. But we can dismiss the experience of the bunch of people in this thread because... there are not millions of us? How many people do you think read Slashdot? Let alone who browse comments at -1? This is a pretty good showing.
I'm sure that Google has managed it so that it bans only a tolerable number of people, not enough to cause a ruckus. I expect that most people who use gmail do it through webmail rather than imap, most people who use gmail probably don't move around all that much and when they do it probably isn't very far, most people who use gmail and do run into a problem probably manage to resolve it at the partial lockout stage rather than the full lockout stage. So what? This does not mean that it does not happen, and it's doesn't mean that it doesn't happen in this way - via ip geolocation. It is the most reasonable explanation, and it fits the data. You've made a wild leap to declare yourself correct on this while offering no alternative explanation.
It's not many, and they're not doing very well as a rule. Link. Japan is the only real oddball on that list and I'm sure there's a very interesting explanation for that, but I don't know what it is.
There's no fixed limit, as you say, but there's a fuzzy limit of approximately 100% of GDP. This is usually around the point when investors start to get nervous with most countries. We're over that now, but being the largest economy in the world and having so much tied in to our economy gives us more leeway than most countries get. Still, our debt is as high as it can realistically be before we start running into some rather harsh consequences in terms of interest rates.
The trouble is we already have a ton of debt, we just can't afford to learn another lesson like that.
We're not arguing about one person, there are a bunch just in this thread. Google does make some allowances for movement, more so if you use their webmail than if you just use imap, but it does indeed happen. Probably to some large portion of those millions of people every day that you're talking about.
Did you read the other recent story about net neutrality on the chopping block? Your expectations might be a little off.
There might be a little silver lining in that though: most of the fake news people are small scale bloggers and the like, not people who can afford to pay extra for a fast lane. Losing net neutrality may curtail the fake news stories a little bit.
I believe I was quite clear: "This touches on a complex issue: can equality be achieved by pursuing advocacy of one group over another, even if the promoted group is started from a disadvantaged position?" It is entirely possible that the whole can cooperatively agree that one group is disadvantaged, and can further agree that promoting said group, to the exclusion of others, is the road to equality. I raised the point that this may not be the right path. Thus if your interests are equality, rather than grabbing everything you can for yourself, it might be in your interests to think a little harder on the subject.
The whole bit about governance was something you brought up, I don't know why. I'm done with your insults though, you can argue with yourself if you want.
As the person above you said, an IP address is not just a random number. IP geolocation may not be reliable enough to be admissible in court, but that doesn't matter in this case. It's a real thing and is probably what Google is using.
Or upmod for political reasons... People say "can't" when they really mean "won't" all the time. It's a very common expression.
It's a Japanese VPN with a single server that you're connecting through each time? I use a VPN with a lot of servers but I only have a few of them authorized for my gmail account. This is easy to do - Google locks you out and imap stops working, so you have to log in via their webmail. That's it. Once you use their webmail once then the address* is authorized for your account. If you switch too many times before you authorize though, then they lock you out totally. I think. I'm not entirely sure what triggers a total lockout, but that seems to be it.
*Probably not a specific IP address, but a range of addresses associated with your geographic region.
I think that was just an expression, there are many high profile examples of pardons without proceeding through any kind of due process. Scooter Libby is maybe the most recent example. He probably meant "won't" - "I won't pardon someone who hasn't gone before a court and presented themselves..."
Don't bet on it. I've lost access to at least four google accounts when I've moved, apparently they didn't like the change in my IP address. No credit card involved.
Also lost access to a yahoo account for an unknown reason. I had the login and password, but some years after I started the account they spontaneously started requiring the use of that security question for which I always fill in random characters. They gave me an option to recover my password, but no option to recover the security question answer.
Free accounts really shouldn't relied on. I still use them, but I have my own domain and associated email for the more important stuff.
What points? All you've really said is that your notion of a republic is one of competitive bargaining, in that individual groups should advocate for their own best interests. So I guess feminists would look to promote women and there'd be some other group, meninists, who would look to promote men and we'd all just have to hope that would work itself out once they had gotten tired of fighting.
That sounds terrible. Competition is by no means part and parcel of representative government, we still operate under the notion of cooperative problem solving even if special interests have weaseled their way in to an alarming degree. Elected representatives are there to ensure that their constituents are a part of this cooperative effort, in principle they are not there to grab whatever they can. In principle.
A store which allows you to donate at checkout is not a charity. This bundle is no different from the standard ones that Humble offers: you can choose where your money goes, but by default 15% goes to the charity of the moment, 65% goes to the publisher, and Humble keeps the other 20%. That's more than what they used to keep.
To their credit, allowing the customer to choose where the money goes is very progressive. But making a donation at checkout is something that many many stores do, my grocery store does that, and it's a pretty safe assumption that most people just go with the default distribution.
No, it's not the same. The whole point is that advocating towards a goal of equity is not necessarily accomplished by promoting a disadvantaged group, when it's done to the exclusion of others. In that case, it would not represent a "positive change."
That's disingenuous, "positive change" is good by definition. The question is whether advocacy for one group, exclusively, can lead to equality.
As for why it's the secondary definition: definitions in the dictionary are listed in order of usage, they don't have anything to do with one another. The first definition is the most common usage of the word, the second definition is the next most common, etc.
Well you've kinda hit the nail on the head there, it's that second definition that the grandparent is complaining about. This touches on a complex issue: can equality be achieved by pursuing advocacy of one group over another, even if the promoted group is started from a disadvantaged position?
I'm not going to try to argue this, there's a lot to be said about it, but just stating that "feminism is about promoting equality" or "feminism is inherently sexist" is not a complete description.
I see a lot of recommendations for Thinkpads here, and that's certainly a good option if you have a price ceiling, but in my view Toughbooks are the best there is. Specifically their semi-rugged line (what used to be their business rugged line). They're expensive, even more expensive than Macbooks, but the build quality is the best I've seen of all laptops and the peace of mind that you get from the added durability (including water proofing) is hard to price.
Despite being resolutely business focused, they've finally gotten around to releasing a model with a discreet GPU. And it has one of those fast-disappearing user-replaceable batteries. (two, if you replace the optical drive with a second battery)
The only criticism I have is that Panasonic seems to be wedded to Windows. I've had a little trouble with some driver related things in Linux, and that discreet GPU that I mentioned above is an AMD GPU... Not a big deal, but a nuisance. Still totally worth it.
The senate refused to recess in order to block a recess appointment, as I recall.
There's only been one proper government shut down in the last twenty years. I was using the term figuratively here as the FCC isn't technically shutting down, it just isn't doing its job. This isn't typical.
What the hell is this? Yes the future FCC may be different from the current one, but we still have a current FCC. The government can't just shut down for two months after an election.
This is the same logic they used to block the supreme court nomination, and is wrong for the same reason.
I don't think I need to read those things, none of those have to do with the subject at hand. The subject being whether a group as a whole should be held responsible for it's fringe elements.
Okay... So right wingers are all murderous nutjobs, but at least they don't demand special privileges? That's not better.
You're saying that because he was a fringe actor we shouldn't equate his actions with the right as a whole? That's fine and all, but it does go both ways.
It's the same mistake that a lot of Facebook users make: it's a public forum which is designed to appear private. When everyone who comments on your posts is someone you know, it's easy to think you can make a joke as you would in private company among people who know you.
The solution, as always, is to never use Facebook... It gets kind tired to just keep saying that over and over again though, every time a story like this comes up. I'm going to just start shrugging and dismissively saying "Facebook problems" whenever Facebook ruins yet another person's life. There's only so many times you can warn people away from that kind of stuff.