Creating more disruptions in traffic flow? It will be the opposite. It is well documented that "assertive" driving and our enormous latency is what cause disruptions in traffic flow.
Anyway, the day there will be a self-driving car, if it is at a reasonable price, they will be a very easy sell for me.
99% of Twitter users have never heard of these people
The big "scandal" was with Leslie Jones and mainstream media talked about it. So even people who don't use Twitter (like myself) at least partially heard about it. I agree that sadly the majority of the population would sympathize with the censorship and the "progressive" attitude of Twitter, but there is still an important minority of pro free speech people who are hurting badly the image of Twitter.
Up to last year, the evil empire using its big bad hackers was China. Now, the enemy du jour is Russia. It looks like during our last hate week, we went from being at war with Eurasia, to being at war with Eastasia.
Imagine if there was a coup in Mexico from a pro-Russia party and supported by Russia. Do you think the US would only send a few soldiers and annex a small part of the country? Compared to the US, Russia is a saint. Oh, and by the way, if you take the time to learn about the history of Crimea, you'll realize it was always Russian. People who live there consider themselves as Russian. That's why the referendum in Crimea was overwhelmingly to leave Ukraine and join Russia.
This is a proof that AIs are not yet to our level of proficiency. Everyone knows that if we want to take a one way street the wrong way, we should do it in reverse.
I live in Montreal. Every day, I take highway 40. The speed limit is 70 kph. That's the law. I drive between 80 and 90 kph, sometimes 100 kph. I'm pretty much the slowest driver on this highway. No one respects the speed limit. Do you want another example? We should all do a full stop at a stop sign. No one fucking does it. There's not a single human driver who respect the law.
Reading all the comments and seeing that the vast majority of people posting have absolutely no clue how the DNS works makes me wonder if there are still nerds here.
I'm Canadian. Apart from Canadian and US media, I also regularly read news from Le Monde and Le Figaro, Al Jazeera, Russia Today and China Daily. My conclusion? All media are doing an enormous amount of propaganda. You may prefer left-wing propaganda over right-wing propaganda, you may prefer pro-establishment propaganda over anti-establishment propaganda, but it is propaganda nonetheless.
In the case of Ukraine, Russia is right. Crimea is Russian and was Russian for hundred of years. People living in Crimea consider themselves as Russians, not as Ukrainians. Also, the rest of the country should have been partitioned. I am extremely critical of NATO, mainly for its political positions. I also think sanctions on Russia should be lifted, Russia is not the enemy, I'm strongly against helping Muslim extremists in Syria, I believe Assad should stay in power, I was against the intervention in Libya, against the support to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, etc.
Basically, I'm strongly against the whole foreign policy of Obama, and Clinton will continue that policy. Clinton is a warmonger and although my military service was the best years of my life, I don't like much the idea of soldiers and civilians dying for petty political games.
I was not talking about the intelligence of Trump, I was talking about the reason why people would support Trump, despite Trump being who he is. If you think supporting Trump means being an idiot, maybe you should consider that people may have greater motives that you obviously do not understand.
Social anarchism is part of socialism and it is against concentration of power. I think you should educate yourself about political ideologies before giving your opinion, because right now you look like an idiot.
1) The best example of how Trump would act is how Sarkozy acted in France when he was president. Both have pretty much the same big mouth narcissistic personality. So what did Sarkozy did? Well, apart from partying, nothing. And that was the best thing that happened to France.
Will Putin dump on him? I don't see why he would. Trump is a fool, but Putin is not. Putin made some serious mistakes, but he is a great politician nonetheless.
On a side not, this new McCarthyism from the left is really, really stupid. Obama restarted the cold war, and this has to stop. You talk about the nuclear button, well I think Clinton should stay away as far as possible from it because she is the one who is the warmonger.
2) All politicians lie constantly. It's sad, but democracy in the West is virtually dead.
3) And Clinton draw support from feminists using the #killallmen hashtag and BLM members who chant, "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!". Who support a candidate does not indicate what this candidate is.
4) You are confusing rhetoric with policy. Trump has no real policy. He'll just let the country run without interfering much. On the other hand, Clinton wants to be seen as the women who will fight for "social justice". And to me, this is not just a stupid policy, this is a dangerous policy. It will make interracial relations even worse than it is now. Pandering to a group of people by making them believe they are victims of the evil white man is the best way to destroy a society.
5) No, he won't, that's just rhetoric for a group of stupid people, the same way Clinton uses rhetoric for her own group of stupid people.
6) He has no real plan. He is not an ideologue. Again, he will just let the country run itself.
7) Same as point 6.
8) Trump is anti-establishment. Of course all politicians hate him. Why is that a bad thing?
9) Yes, Benghazi and the email server things are dumb. But the sad truth is that ordinary people can't understand real political issues and they can't discuss things like moral or social principles. People vote on image, not on ideas. Just look at yourself and the argument you used against Trump. All your points are as insignificant as Benghazi and the email server.
10) What kind of stupid argument is that? You should not vote based on how someone looks, but on how the country will be affected by his or her presidency. Again, Trump is a narcissist who will let the country run itself, Clinton is an ideologue who will continue the same policy as Obama. She will continue his warmongering and his "social justice" policies.
11) If you want to see the effect of Muslim immigration, look at Europe. Civil unrest is growing and their society is on the verge of collapsing. There are more and more districts where the police will be very careful, as the possibility they will be attacked is high.
What we see in Europe is that when Muslims become more than 5% of the population, they cease to integrate and begin to create their own sub-society. There was recently a poll in France saying that 28% of Muslims in France now consider that Sharia law should be the only law. Another 25% consider that Sharia law is still important, even if they acknowledge that France can have other laws. Even more frightening, 24% of Muslims support the idea that women should wear the burqa. Basically, there is between one and two million Muslims in France who are extremists, and that number is growing rapidly.
As the US has only 1% of Muslims, Americans just don't see the effect yet. But Islam is the biggest threat to the West. Oh, and by the way, I'm an atheist.
--
You're like most people. You based your opinion on image and feelings. You try to attack Trump based on his personality. But his personality is irrelevant. Your vote should be determined by the effect it will have.
Trump will let the country run itself. He won't do anything good, but he won't do anything bad either. On the other hand, Clinton
Have you considered that maybe it's you who is not as intelligent as you think you are?
I'm not American. Politically, I'm an old school socialist. A real one. You know, sharing of means of production and all that. More precisely, the closest label I can give myself would be social anarchist advocating mutualism as the economic system. I guess a common term (for Americans) that might broadly describe my political view is left libertarian. I am for free market, but I hate capitalism as much as I hate communism. And since social democracy (the modern left) is a mix of capitalism and communism, I hate this system even more.
The difference between Clinton and Trump has nothing to do with "left" and "right", at least not in the traditional sense. I view Trump more to the left than Clinton. The difference is between moral systems. The simplest way I could describe it is that Trump's political view is defined by a masculine moral system, while Clinton's political view (like Obama and most modern leftist) is defined by a feminine moral system. Trump is for justice, Clinton is for equality. Trump is for helping the ones who succeed in society, Clinton is for helping the ones who fail in society. Trump's basis for social rules is principles, Clinton's basis for social rules is feelings.
Trump vs Clinton is not right against left, it's masculinity against femininity. One thing is for sure, it has nothing to do with intelligence.
If you think Trump is "far right", then you don't know much about politics. As for Russia influencing elections, they are nothing compared to the US. Even when it comes to Ukraine, must I remind you that the US immediately supported the coup? Must I remind you that a big part of the rebels were a (real) far-right group? So much for the US who say they support "democracy".
Anyway, I think it's time Democrats stop with this new McCarthyism. McCarthy was an idiot, and so are modern Democrats. Of course Russia would prefer Trump as Clinton, like Obama, is a warmonger who might very well start World War III, but seeing some kind of conspiracy behind this is ridiculous.
Oh, and by the way, my views are not the result of partisanship. I'm Canadian and I generally consider myself to the left. But modern Democrats in the US are not the "left" anymore.
I could give you the IP address of my phone and you would be able to connect to it without a common meeting point. I will agree it's not as easy, particularly if the phone is behind NAT, but saying "can't do that without a common meeting point" is false.
No, this is "radically different". This is not even new. The whole village was always aware of all gossips about everyone. The only difference is the size of the village we live in. We went from living in a village of a few thousand individuals to living in a village of 7 billion individuals.
Not only was there a lot less anonymity in the past, but there was also a lot less forgiveness. In the past, her behavior would not bring her only mockery, but animosity. She would have been relegated to the social status of a completely worthless whore. No one would have supported her and she would have been socially ostracized. In the past, no one would have cared about her suicide. Not even you.
Was the past more morally correct? Are we now more morally correct? This is debatable. But one thing is for sure, your argument is plain false.
It's not because some politicians decided that something was a "crime", that I also consider it as a crime. My moral values and who I excuse are not determined by some politicians, they are determined by me, and only me.
And how do these offended people know that an ad from a specific company is shown before a video they don't watch? YouTube is not a television where everyone watch the same thing. I am the only one who watch the ad when I watch a video. No one can be offended by something only I see.
Either those "sponsors" are a bunch of complete idiots, or this is just a bullshit excuse. If I watch a video from a channel I'm subscribed to, it's almost always because I like the content and view that content in a positive way. And if I view the content in a positive way, even if it's "offensive" to someone else, I will also view the sponsor in a positive way. Maybe the sponsor will view the content in a negative way, but the goal of the advertisement is to make me buy a product, not to make the advertisers feel good about himself.
Slashdot Mirror
Creating more disruptions in traffic flow? It will be the opposite. It is well documented that "assertive" driving and our enormous latency is what cause disruptions in traffic flow.
Anyway, the day there will be a self-driving car, if it is at a reasonable price, they will be a very easy sell for me.
99% of Twitter users have never heard of these people
The big "scandal" was with Leslie Jones and mainstream media talked about it. So even people who don't use Twitter (like myself) at least partially heard about it. I agree that sadly the majority of the population would sympathize with the censorship and the "progressive" attitude of Twitter, but there is still an important minority of pro free speech people who are hurting badly the image of Twitter.
Up to last year, the evil empire using its big bad hackers was China. Now, the enemy du jour is Russia. It looks like during our last hate week, we went from being at war with Eurasia, to being at war with Eastasia.
Imagine if there was a coup in Mexico from a pro-Russia party and supported by Russia. Do you think the US would only send a few soldiers and annex a small part of the country? Compared to the US, Russia is a saint. Oh, and by the way, if you take the time to learn about the history of Crimea, you'll realize it was always Russian. People who live there consider themselves as Russian. That's why the referendum in Crimea was overwhelmingly to leave Ukraine and join Russia.
This is a proof that AIs are not yet to our level of proficiency. Everyone knows that if we want to take a one way street the wrong way, we should do it in reverse.
I live in Montreal. Every day, I take highway 40. The speed limit is 70 kph. That's the law. I drive between 80 and 90 kph, sometimes 100 kph. I'm pretty much the slowest driver on this highway. No one respects the speed limit. Do you want another example? We should all do a full stop at a stop sign. No one fucking does it. There's not a single human driver who respect the law.
Reading all the comments and seeing that the vast majority of people posting have absolutely no clue how the DNS works makes me wonder if there are still nerds here.
I'm Canadian. Apart from Canadian and US media, I also regularly read news from Le Monde and Le Figaro, Al Jazeera, Russia Today and China Daily. My conclusion? All media are doing an enormous amount of propaganda. You may prefer left-wing propaganda over right-wing propaganda, you may prefer pro-establishment propaganda over anti-establishment propaganda, but it is propaganda nonetheless.
In the case of Ukraine, Russia is right. Crimea is Russian and was Russian for hundred of years. People living in Crimea consider themselves as Russians, not as Ukrainians. Also, the rest of the country should have been partitioned. I am extremely critical of NATO, mainly for its political positions. I also think sanctions on Russia should be lifted, Russia is not the enemy, I'm strongly against helping Muslim extremists in Syria, I believe Assad should stay in power, I was against the intervention in Libya, against the support to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, etc.
Basically, I'm strongly against the whole foreign policy of Obama, and Clinton will continue that policy. Clinton is a warmonger and although my military service was the best years of my life, I don't like much the idea of soldiers and civilians dying for petty political games.
I was not talking about the intelligence of Trump, I was talking about the reason why people would support Trump, despite Trump being who he is. If you think supporting Trump means being an idiot, maybe you should consider that people may have greater motives that you obviously do not understand.
Social anarchism is part of socialism and it is against concentration of power. I think you should educate yourself about political ideologies before giving your opinion, because right now you look like an idiot.
I'll answer your points.
1) The best example of how Trump would act is how Sarkozy acted in France when he was president. Both have pretty much the same big mouth narcissistic personality. So what did Sarkozy did? Well, apart from partying, nothing. And that was the best thing that happened to France.
Will Putin dump on him? I don't see why he would. Trump is a fool, but Putin is not. Putin made some serious mistakes, but he is a great politician nonetheless.
On a side not, this new McCarthyism from the left is really, really stupid. Obama restarted the cold war, and this has to stop. You talk about the nuclear button, well I think Clinton should stay away as far as possible from it because she is the one who is the warmonger.
2) All politicians lie constantly. It's sad, but democracy in the West is virtually dead.
3) And Clinton draw support from feminists using the #killallmen hashtag and BLM members who chant, "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!". Who support a candidate does not indicate what this candidate is.
4) You are confusing rhetoric with policy. Trump has no real policy. He'll just let the country run without interfering much. On the other hand, Clinton wants to be seen as the women who will fight for "social justice". And to me, this is not just a stupid policy, this is a dangerous policy. It will make interracial relations even worse than it is now. Pandering to a group of people by making them believe they are victims of the evil white man is the best way to destroy a society.
5) No, he won't, that's just rhetoric for a group of stupid people, the same way Clinton uses rhetoric for her own group of stupid people.
6) He has no real plan. He is not an ideologue. Again, he will just let the country run itself.
7) Same as point 6.
8) Trump is anti-establishment. Of course all politicians hate him. Why is that a bad thing?
9) Yes, Benghazi and the email server things are dumb. But the sad truth is that ordinary people can't understand real political issues and they can't discuss things like moral or social principles. People vote on image, not on ideas. Just look at yourself and the argument you used against Trump. All your points are as insignificant as Benghazi and the email server.
10) What kind of stupid argument is that? You should not vote based on how someone looks, but on how the country will be affected by his or her presidency. Again, Trump is a narcissist who will let the country run itself, Clinton is an ideologue who will continue the same policy as Obama. She will continue his warmongering and his "social justice" policies.
11) If you want to see the effect of Muslim immigration, look at Europe. Civil unrest is growing and their society is on the verge of collapsing. There are more and more districts where the police will be very careful, as the possibility they will be attacked is high.
What we see in Europe is that when Muslims become more than 5% of the population, they cease to integrate and begin to create their own sub-society. There was recently a poll in France saying that 28% of Muslims in France now consider that Sharia law should be the only law. Another 25% consider that Sharia law is still important, even if they acknowledge that France can have other laws. Even more frightening, 24% of Muslims support the idea that women should wear the burqa. Basically, there is between one and two million Muslims in France who are extremists, and that number is growing rapidly.
As the US has only 1% of Muslims, Americans just don't see the effect yet. But Islam is the biggest threat to the West. Oh, and by the way, I'm an atheist.
--
You're like most people. You based your opinion on image and feelings. You try to attack Trump based on his personality. But his personality is irrelevant. Your vote should be determined by the effect it will have.
Trump will let the country run itself. He won't do anything good, but he won't do anything bad either. On the other hand, Clinton
It's not just the US, this is the same for pretty much all Western countries.
You're right, Clinton would instead happily declare war against Russia. She will certainly continue the warmongering policy of Obama.
Have you considered that maybe it's you who is not as intelligent as you think you are?
I'm not American. Politically, I'm an old school socialist. A real one. You know, sharing of means of production and all that. More precisely, the closest label I can give myself would be social anarchist advocating mutualism as the economic system. I guess a common term (for Americans) that might broadly describe my political view is left libertarian. I am for free market, but I hate capitalism as much as I hate communism. And since social democracy (the modern left) is a mix of capitalism and communism, I hate this system even more.
The difference between Clinton and Trump has nothing to do with "left" and "right", at least not in the traditional sense. I view Trump more to the left than Clinton. The difference is between moral systems. The simplest way I could describe it is that Trump's political view is defined by a masculine moral system, while Clinton's political view (like Obama and most modern leftist) is defined by a feminine moral system. Trump is for justice, Clinton is for equality. Trump is for helping the ones who succeed in society, Clinton is for helping the ones who fail in society. Trump's basis for social rules is principles, Clinton's basis for social rules is feelings.
Trump vs Clinton is not right against left, it's masculinity against femininity. One thing is for sure, it has nothing to do with intelligence.
If you think Trump is "far right", then you don't know much about politics. As for Russia influencing elections, they are nothing compared to the US. Even when it comes to Ukraine, must I remind you that the US immediately supported the coup? Must I remind you that a big part of the rebels were a (real) far-right group? So much for the US who say they support "democracy".
Anyway, I think it's time Democrats stop with this new McCarthyism. McCarthy was an idiot, and so are modern Democrats. Of course Russia would prefer Trump as Clinton, like Obama, is a warmonger who might very well start World War III, but seeing some kind of conspiracy behind this is ridiculous.
Oh, and by the way, my views are not the result of partisanship. I'm Canadian and I generally consider myself to the left. But modern Democrats in the US are not the "left" anymore.
I live in Canada. My washing machine (Whirlpool) bought in 96 or 97 obviously doesn't have an off-balance shutdown.
I could give you the IP address of my phone and you would be able to connect to it without a common meeting point. I will agree it's not as easy, particularly if the phone is behind NAT, but saying "can't do that without a common meeting point" is false.
I will agree to traitors to their government, but "traitors to their country" is debatable.
Argh, I meant "this is not radically different".
No, this is "radically different". This is not even new. The whole village was always aware of all gossips about everyone. The only difference is the size of the village we live in. We went from living in a village of a few thousand individuals to living in a village of 7 billion individuals.
Not only was there a lot less anonymity in the past, but there was also a lot less forgiveness. In the past, her behavior would not bring her only mockery, but animosity. She would have been relegated to the social status of a completely worthless whore. No one would have supported her and she would have been socially ostracized. In the past, no one would have cared about her suicide. Not even you.
Was the past more morally correct? Are we now more morally correct? This is debatable. But one thing is for sure, your argument is plain false.
It's not because some politicians decided that something was a "crime", that I also consider it as a crime. My moral values and who I excuse are not determined by some politicians, they are determined by me, and only me.
And how do these offended people know that an ad from a specific company is shown before a video they don't watch? YouTube is not a television where everyone watch the same thing. I am the only one who watch the ad when I watch a video. No one can be offended by something only I see.
Click bait are for the ad revenues. If there's no ad revenue, click baits are useless. Think about it before trying to insult people.
Either those "sponsors" are a bunch of complete idiots, or this is just a bullshit excuse. If I watch a video from a channel I'm subscribed to, it's almost always because I like the content and view that content in a positive way. And if I view the content in a positive way, even if it's "offensive" to someone else, I will also view the sponsor in a positive way. Maybe the sponsor will view the content in a negative way, but the goal of the advertisement is to make me buy a product, not to make the advertisers feel good about himself.