Nah. Ever bought an iPhone? They're worse - won't function at all unless you give them your information. And you also need to have the right SIM for the carrier associated with the phone, even if you never connect the phone to a cell network.
And it's not like no one is buying iPhones. People don't care about this stuff, DJI will be fine.
I do not want 0 carbs, and also: that is nonsense. Here is a nutrition label for textured vegetable protein. As you can see: it does have protein, and: it does not have 8 times more carbs than protein.
Where do people get these crazy ideas about nutrition? "Anything vegetable does not have protein."? Where do you think protein comes from initially? Hint: it's not cows.
Textured vegetable protein. Super cheap, keeps almost indefinitely, easy to prepare (just add water... and also cook), high in protein, low in fat, high in fiber, environmentally friendly, and it doesn't taste like much on its own so you can make it taste like whatever you want.
Alternative answer: dry dog food. All of the above, plus it's nutritionally complete.
First, the author is making arguments about the practice of science, not the results of science. It has nothing to do with predetermined outcomes.
Second, the whole point of the march was resistance to recent attacks on both the practice and the results of science by vested interests and their political stooges. These attacks have been heavily partisan in nature and this has resulted in, as you say, the politicization of science. Which, you're right, kills it as a tool for determining public policy. The march was an attempt at resuscitation.
This woman just seemed to be trying to piggyback on the march to promote her own issues. It's a little crass, but not terribly important.
Obama would have violated the Constitution (he was trying to w/Assange and has a number of times while in office regarding other topics) in a heartbeat to prosecute Assange.
If there's anything that recent events should have thought you, it's that the president does not control the justice department.
What, seriously? Preserving records is vanity now? Personal correspondence makes up a great deal of historical source material, wanting to ensure that future people aren't blind to the past is not vain.
The Republican party is ideologically opposed to Net Neutrality. It is, after all, a massive government regulation.
This isn't accurate. As is always the case with politicians, you have to look at what they do and not just what they say: Republicans love regulations, just not all of them. For a related example to the topic at hand, Republicans in many states have passed or attempted to pass regulations prohibiting the establishment of municipal ISPs. Ensuring that once net neutrality is dead, no one will have access to an open internet.
So then you're suggesting that net neutrality does block free speech by.. ensuring that the ISPs are forced to allow everyone to post and read online equally?
I would like to know what chain of thought led you from what I said to this conclusion.
This idea that speech is only about talking and not about listening is a harmful one. Speech is communication, and that takes two parties: when you're obstructing peoples' ability to listen, that is another way of obstructing speech.
Well... not to belabor definitions here, but you explained this yourself in your title. Republicans are not progressives, they are not after progress. They are conservatives, in opposition to progress. Or, to put a more positive spin on that, they're about careful, cautious, advancement and the way we've been doing things until now has worked just fine thank-you-very-much.
Those are the old definitions of progressive and conservative. The modern American definitions are just: conservatives believe whatever the Republican Party platform is at the moment, and the same for progressives and Democrats.
Oh bleh. I applaud your seeming desire to hold the responsible people accountable for their actions, but consider who you're talking too - people have spent years now blaming Obama for everything that the justice department has done while he was in charge, everything that the spy agencies have done, everything that congress has done (or not done), etc. Remember that bit about Obama ordering a tap on Trump's phone? How long ago was that? You can't expect those same people to just turn around and recognize that the president isn't a king. That would require a remarkable capacity for doublethink.
This is important. I think part of the reason and the anti-internet privacy bill have gotten through congress so easily is the perception that these are issues which the public doesn't care about, or at least doesn't care much about.
What are you trying to get at here? (Also, why is dictate in all caps?) Are you trying to suggest that congress should be able to determine regulatory policy? And you think that this would be less politicized?... There was a time when this would have been a rhetorical question, I would have followed it up with something like, "Of course you don't think that, no one is that stupid."...::sigh::
Congress already dictates regulatory policy. The FCC and other such bodies only have what powers congress gives them, and they can be overruled by congress at any time. I.e.: congress can DICTATE (?) policy to the regulatory body and that body must follow it, congress can assume control whenever they wish. The point of having these agencies is simply a matter of delegation.
Well, for starters, iOS development requires MacOS. Other things which Apple does tend to tie into MacOS as well - you can use iTunes in Windows, and technically you can make a couple versions of it work in Linux (sorta), but it only works well in MacOS. Just don't use iTunes, you say? That's fine as long as you don't need to "activate" an iPhone. Etc.
Obviously, given this bullshit, it would be best to steer clear of Apple products all together, but some of us need to make money.
People have done it since. This is basically what GameTap was, even including the funding of original content.
Comparing this to Netflix though, and then saying, "It would mean you wouldn't have to deliver the whole game in one month; you could develop and deliver the game as it goes." - This is the opposite of how Netflix does it.
The article says that Tesla is in negotiations with Grohmann's clients over compensation related to this issue. You can call this what you want, but if they require compensation then these relationships were substantial ones.
Your assumption about Grohmann's motivations is possible, but unsubstantiated.
That is not how it's supposed to work and, thankfully, not usually how it does work. People are people, and this kind of petty shit happens sometimes, but it's not the norm - most of the time people at least pretend to be professional and honor both the letter and the spirit of their contracts. This sort of thing, "Screw prior obligations, you're working for ME now!" this is a name-and-shame situation. You're not supposed to be defending it. That said, it's also a one-sided story.
Nothing here suggests that they're going to start taking on political ideologies, only the manner in which some proponents of those ideologies spread their message.
Also you're either falling into false equivalency or strawman arguments. I don't know logic well enough to say which or both. GPL'd software is not public domain. That's a fact. It's copywritted and licensed. Public domain means not copywritted. Those are facts. You're bending facts to fit your narrative (probably without realizing you're doing it, it's easy and temping to do, see:) ).
... What? I was comparing two things: GPL'd software, and public domain software. I made no claim that they were the same, that wouldn't make any sense. The point of the comparison was to illustrate that greater freedom doesn't necessarily come from fewer rules, even though rules are things which exist specifically to limit freedom. i.e.: The most-free market is not necessarily one which has no rules.
That notion about government interference is a talking point, just like "all regulations are bad." It's something that GOP advocates say often, and talking points are necessarily simplistic, but that doesn't mean that it represents all of the nuances of the position.
Also: the defacto leader of the party is the president, despite that people would prefer otherwise.
That's too simple. You can certainly make the claim that removing a requirement for net neutrality increases market freedom by reducing a limitation on the market, but that limitation exists to increase market freedom. This is an old argument on Slashdot: is GPL'd software more Free or less Free than public domain software? It's not a question that you can answer definitively, the restriction increases freedom in some ways and decreases it in others.
Likewise, Net Neutrality is not fundamentally at odds with Republican ideals. It's only at odds with the way that some people are interpreting those ideals.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah. Ever bought an iPhone? They're worse - won't function at all unless you give them your information. And you also need to have the right SIM for the carrier associated with the phone, even if you never connect the phone to a cell network.
And it's not like no one is buying iPhones. People don't care about this stuff, DJI will be fine.
I do not want 0 carbs, and also: that is nonsense. Here is a nutrition label for textured vegetable protein. As you can see: it does have protein, and: it does not have 8 times more carbs than protein.
Where do people get these crazy ideas about nutrition? "Anything vegetable does not have protein."? Where do you think protein comes from initially? Hint: it's not cows.
Textured vegetable protein. Super cheap, keeps almost indefinitely, easy to prepare (just add water ... and also cook), high in protein, low in fat, high in fiber, environmentally friendly, and it doesn't taste like much on its own so you can make it taste like whatever you want.
Alternative answer: dry dog food. All of the above, plus it's nutritionally complete.
First, the author is making arguments about the practice of science, not the results of science. It has nothing to do with predetermined outcomes.
Second, the whole point of the march was resistance to recent attacks on both the practice and the results of science by vested interests and their political stooges. These attacks have been heavily partisan in nature and this has resulted in, as you say, the politicization of science. Which, you're right, kills it as a tool for determining public policy. The march was an attempt at resuscitation.
This woman just seemed to be trying to piggyback on the march to promote her own issues. It's a little crass, but not terribly important.
Okay, I read the article... I don't get it. What's the joke?
Obama would have violated the Constitution (he was trying to w/Assange and has a number of times while in office regarding other topics) in a heartbeat to prosecute Assange.
If there's anything that recent events should have thought you, it's that the president does not control the justice department.
What, seriously? Preserving records is vanity now? Personal correspondence makes up a great deal of historical source material, wanting to ensure that future people aren't blind to the past is not vain.
The Republican party is ideologically opposed to Net Neutrality. It is, after all, a massive government regulation.
This isn't accurate. As is always the case with politicians, you have to look at what they do and not just what they say: Republicans love regulations, just not all of them. For a related example to the topic at hand, Republicans in many states have passed or attempted to pass regulations prohibiting the establishment of municipal ISPs. Ensuring that once net neutrality is dead, no one will have access to an open internet.
So then you're suggesting that net neutrality does block free speech by.. ensuring that the ISPs are forced to allow everyone to post and read online equally?
I would like to know what chain of thought led you from what I said to this conclusion.
This idea that speech is only about talking and not about listening is a harmful one. Speech is communication, and that takes two parties: when you're obstructing peoples' ability to listen, that is another way of obstructing speech.
Well... not to belabor definitions here, but you explained this yourself in your title. Republicans are not progressives, they are not after progress. They are conservatives, in opposition to progress. Or, to put a more positive spin on that, they're about careful, cautious, advancement and the way we've been doing things until now has worked just fine thank-you-very-much.
Those are the old definitions of progressive and conservative. The modern American definitions are just: conservatives believe whatever the Republican Party platform is at the moment, and the same for progressives and Democrats.
Wait, they don't believe in the moon landing either? Why not? That one doesn't seem to violate anything bible-related.
Yeah, it's not like handbags aren't also portable and also subject to abuse. And people manage to take care of those well enough.
Oh bleh. I applaud your seeming desire to hold the responsible people accountable for their actions, but consider who you're talking too - people have spent years now blaming Obama for everything that the justice department has done while he was in charge, everything that the spy agencies have done, everything that congress has done (or not done), etc. Remember that bit about Obama ordering a tap on Trump's phone? How long ago was that? You can't expect those same people to just turn around and recognize that the president isn't a king. That would require a remarkable capacity for doublethink.
Someone posted this link above. Putting 17-108 in the first field there worked for me.
This is important. I think part of the reason and the anti-internet privacy bill have gotten through congress so easily is the perception that these are issues which the public doesn't care about, or at least doesn't care much about.
What are you trying to get at here? (Also, why is dictate in all caps?) Are you trying to suggest that congress should be able to determine regulatory policy? And you think that this would be less politicized? ... There was a time when this would have been a rhetorical question, I would have followed it up with something like, "Of course you don't think that, no one is that stupid." ... ::sigh::
Congress already dictates regulatory policy. The FCC and other such bodies only have what powers congress gives them, and they can be overruled by congress at any time. I.e.: congress can DICTATE (?) policy to the regulatory body and that body must follow it, congress can assume control whenever they wish. The point of having these agencies is simply a matter of delegation.
I am honestly surprised that any reasonable person would think that Obama personally ordered the wiretap
No reasonable person would think that, that's the point. No one has claimed that he installed it himself.
Well, for starters, iOS development requires MacOS. Other things which Apple does tend to tie into MacOS as well - you can use iTunes in Windows, and technically you can make a couple versions of it work in Linux (sorta), but it only works well in MacOS. Just don't use iTunes, you say? That's fine as long as you don't need to "activate" an iPhone. Etc.
Obviously, given this bullshit, it would be best to steer clear of Apple products all together, but some of us need to make money.
People have done it since. This is basically what GameTap was, even including the funding of original content.
Comparing this to Netflix though, and then saying, "It would mean you wouldn't have to deliver the whole game in one month; you could develop and deliver the game as it goes." - This is the opposite of how Netflix does it.
The article says that Tesla is in negotiations with Grohmann's clients over compensation related to this issue. You can call this what you want, but if they require compensation then these relationships were substantial ones.
Your assumption about Grohmann's motivations is possible, but unsubstantiated.
That is not how it's supposed to work and, thankfully, not usually how it does work. People are people, and this kind of petty shit happens sometimes, but it's not the norm - most of the time people at least pretend to be professional and honor both the letter and the spirit of their contracts. This sort of thing, "Screw prior obligations, you're working for ME now!" this is a name-and-shame situation. You're not supposed to be defending it. That said, it's also a one-sided story.
Nothing here suggests that they're going to start taking on political ideologies, only the manner in which some proponents of those ideologies spread their message.
Also you're either falling into false equivalency or strawman arguments. I don't know logic well enough to say which or both. GPL'd software is not public domain. That's a fact. It's copywritted and licensed. Public domain means not copywritted. Those are facts. You're bending facts to fit your narrative (probably without realizing you're doing it, it's easy and temping to do, see :) ).
... What? I was comparing two things: GPL'd software, and public domain software. I made no claim that they were the same, that wouldn't make any sense. The point of the comparison was to illustrate that greater freedom doesn't necessarily come from fewer rules, even though rules are things which exist specifically to limit freedom. i.e.: The most-free market is not necessarily one which has no rules.
That notion about government interference is a talking point, just like "all regulations are bad." It's something that GOP advocates say often, and talking points are necessarily simplistic, but that doesn't mean that it represents all of the nuances of the position.
Also: the defacto leader of the party is the president, despite that people would prefer otherwise.
That's too simple. You can certainly make the claim that removing a requirement for net neutrality increases market freedom by reducing a limitation on the market, but that limitation exists to increase market freedom. This is an old argument on Slashdot: is GPL'd software more Free or less Free than public domain software? It's not a question that you can answer definitively, the restriction increases freedom in some ways and decreases it in others.
Likewise, Net Neutrality is not fundamentally at odds with Republican ideals. It's only at odds with the way that some people are interpreting those ideals.