This should be a lesson for every company in the world : never depend on American technology. The first thing the new leadership of ZTE should do is now replace as fast as possible Qualcomm chips and Android in their devices.
I remember all the nice presentation in the 80s about Reagan's SDI. Turned out the vast majority of it was utter bullshit. The reality is the US lie at least as much as Russia about its weapon technology.
In the case hypersonic missiles, I believe Russia will very soon have them. Maybe not in 2020 like Putin said, but still very soon. Also, since I'm not American (I live in Canada), I tend to view the US as the bellicose country in the world, not Russia. I do believe the US might be tempted to attack Russia as the Sino-Russian alliance is becoming a major threat for the US world domination.
Considering the first thing a government must do before a war is to rally its population, I'd say that the best clue for a possible American attack is the constant anti-Russian rhetoric in the US since Obama. There is no such anti-American rhetoric in Russia.
It depends if your goal is to discourage a bellicose enemy to start a war, or if you are the bellicose party and hope to win a war.
There are three ways to control the world : military power, economic power, and cultural power. The US is still, by far, the first military power, but its cultural power has crumbled since the 90s, and it will soon lose its place as the first economic power to the Chinese. Because of that, it would be logical for the US to rely more and more on its military power to maintain its domination over the world. This bullshit about a "quantum radar" is simply because the Chinese are trying to restrain the use of military power from the US in order for them to achieve domination over the world through economic power.
People tend to believe what they want to believe. So by creating laws which are subject to interpretation, people interpret those laws according to what they want to believe, which makes them believe it's a good law, and they'll end up supporting (voting for) politicians creating those laws.
A man who believes he's really a woman and ends up mutilating his body is perfectly normal, but playing some video games a bit too much is a mental disorder.
It's a very sad world when a company has to treat every employee like a child who needs constant supervision. And of course, the really interesting question is who will supervise the supervisors? Will it be turtles all the way down?
How about we go back to a saner world when we considered adults as responsible for their own actions?
I'm someone who feels more alive when I don't feel safe and comfortable. That's for example why I love to go outdoor when it's cold and raining. That's why the best time of my life was when I was in the military. As for employment, I'm self-employed. Finally, I'm not sure what you mean with opportunity, but I certainly feel I'm less free now than in the past.
For me, the [current year] is bland, too authoritarian, and devoid of excitement. For me, the past was really better.
First, East Asians place a much greater value in hard work than those of European descent.
Second, the nobility had a lot more influence on European culture than the clergy. If you look at Islam, you'll see that Muslims still follow the Quran pretty much to the letter. That's not the case for Christianity at all. The reason is because Christianity had to adapt to European culture. Christianity is the product of European culture, it is not the cause of European culture. Qualifying European culture as "Christian culture" is really wrong.
Third, Jews were always an insignificant minority and for most of the time no one cared about them. Until recently, they were not considered as British, French or Germans, they were considered as Jews. Your excuse to use the word "Christian" as a way to separate Europeans from Jews doesn't make much sense.
The ADL is a racist (anti-white) and ideologically motivated organization with very little credibility.
At the time, the people who chose to use the label alt-right were mostly a bunch of young men who were tired of the hypocrisy of politicians, as well as tired of the identity politics game that leftists are playing (which is nothing but racism and sexism). If anything, the majority of the alt-right were true anti-racist. When in 2017 the alt-right radicalized itself, most of the people using the label alt-right chose to rename themselves as the alt-light since they didn't want to be associated with the group anymore.
I have three cats, all of them were feral. It's true one was only about two months old when I got her, so she doesn't really count, but the other two were adults (one was about two years old, the other probably about five years old). Because of my experience, I can safely say you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
You asked a question ("What about the two Utility Patent Infringements?"), and you used insults. You never presented any kind of argument. Maybe you have one in your head, but I'm not a mind reader.
From my part, I just made the argument that your question was pretty much irrelevant to the subject, as it's only 1% of the amount Samsung has to pay.
The bulk of the damages payment, $533,316,606, was for infringing three Apple design patents. The remaining $5,325,050 was for infringing two utility patents.
As I said, you don't have a point, and you know it. That's why you are using insults and other fallacies.
Because as I already explained to you, "to accept" is a consequence of "not to mind", it is not the same concept. For example "being soaked" is a consequence of "taking a bath", yet, asking me to replace "being soaked" with "taking a bath" in a sentence would be absurd.
Listen. You lost badly in this discussion, and instead of admitting you were wrong, you are now just making a fool of yourself. The consequence of your ridiculous ego makes you look like a complete idiot.
One more thing. Since you obviously have psychological issues (I'm guessing autistic or narcissistic), here's one truth for you : being chivalrous won't get you laid. The time when women were rewarding chivalrous men with sex is now long gone. In our modern age, the only thing being chivalrous will get you is being abused by women. You will be treated as a loser and a creep, and the only result is you'll end up bitter and despising women.
If a woman "doesn't mind" that a man is chivalrous to her, if she doesn't say "no", then she has to do something in return. If she has no intention of reciprocating, she must say "no". If she doesn't, she's just an abuser who deserves no respect.
I already explained to you why "not mind" necessarily means "to accept". I won't repeat myself.
Anyway, since you insist... If a woman "doesn't mind" that a man is chivalrous to her, if she doesn't say "no", then she has to do something in return. If she has no intention of reciprocating, she must say "no". If she doesn't, she's just an abuser who deserves no respect.
As for your example of holding a door, this is not "chivalry", this is just basic courtesy. I expect women to hold the door for me too.
BTW, if a woman wait for me to open the door for her, I will go before her and I will close the door behind me. I'm not a servant. When I was a virgin who was desperate for sex, I would do a lot of stupid "chivalrous" shit, but that was a very long time ago.
Except that I suspect that more men were happy about the roles they were assigned than women happy about the roles they were assigned.
So you suspect the coal miner who was working 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, and who could see the sun only on Sundays was happier than his wife who was staying at home raising children? Really?
If we're talking about blacks in Western society, there's been a huge number of roles that they've been barred from playing.
Your definition of "oppression" also includes duties people had to fulfill, and blacks in Western society had fewer duties to fulfill. You have to realize that white people never had anything for free. Every "privilege" that you believe white people was associated with duties.
[About my forced military service] Damn right that's oppression - it's called forced labour
As I explained, this was part of my social contract. Being a citizen implies we have to fulfill our roles to maintain society. Without forcing people to do their duties in order to maintain society, there is no society. You are Canadian, so you didn't have to do a military service, but it doesn't change that you have to obey a lot of rules and do a lot of tasks for your society.
If you feel it was so, then make it mandatory for all. Why should some be exempt,. but not others?
Because different groups of people don't have the same abilities or the same way to view things (either because of biology or group culture), therefore different roles should be assigned to different groups.
While I was doing my mandatory military service, I saw a total of three women who chose to do a voluntary military service, as well as a few professional female soldiers. Let me be blunt, those women should not have been allowed in the military. They didn't have the physical strength to accomplish their roles, nor the psychological resilience to endure the training. They had to be exempted from the most rigorous training. They had to be given special privileges.
More importantly, they were destroying the social cohesion of the group. Not only because of their special privileges, but also because when things were beginning to get tough, they used sexual seduction to get help from men, and the result was infighting between men in the wild hope of getting sex. The reality is women in the military are destructive. I do think women could play some roles in the military, but only as civilians.
Another group that was virtually exempted from military service were Muslims. Things like Ramadan means a Muslim also has to be given special privileges (mainly because they don't have the right to drink water between sunrise and sunset, meaning forcing them to participate to exercise during Ramadan could lead to dehydration), so the army preferred to exempt Muslims from conscription.
Otherwise, do the sensible thing. Raise taxes
You don't think the government taking your hard-earned money is oppression? I gave two years of my life to do my military service, but considering I pay about 50% taxes, I gave a lot more than two years of my life in taxes.
In all of this, you've put forward the idea of a social contract, and I agree. But there's no reason why we should select who fulfills the roles that are necessary by gender, eye color, or the first letter of their last name.
Can you give me examples of roles that are attributed according to eye color? I can't think of any.
By the way, equality of opportunity does not preclude someone (and quite possibly, even the majority) choosing to adopt traditional roles. But putting huge social and cultural hurdles to escaping them? Reducing people's freedom to choose their role? That's simply evil.
In a community where the leaders personally know each member of the communit
My statement is a logical conclusion based on your premise. "Accept" is the logical conclusion of the premise "don't mind". For obvious reasons, I can't replace a logical conclusion with the premise (if I could then it would it would indicate circular reasoning, which is a fallacy).
In effect, what you are asking me is to avoid stating any logical conclusion based on your premises, that is you don't want me to say anything about the consequences of your premise. Sorry, but I won't do that. I will educate you and show you what are the consequences of your premises.
For the second time, my point is a woman who accepts the chivalrous act of a man, implicitly accepts the duty to reciprocate one way or another. Do you agree with that point?
Please, stop making a fool of yourself and answer that question.
If you don't mind people being wrong on the Internet, then obviously you don't do anything against it, which means you accept it. It seems to me you are confusing the concept of "encouraging it" with the concept of "accepting it".
Again, when someone doesn't mind something, then logically that person necessarily accept that thing. For example, I don't mind homosexuality, therefore you can conclude I'm not trying to forbid it, therefore you can conclude I accept it. On the other hand, I do mind pedophilia, meaning I do not accept it and therefore I will try to forbid it.
Anyway, my point is a woman who accepts the chivalrous act of a man, implicitly accepts the duty to reciprocate one way or another. Do you agree with that point?
According to your definition, any social rule we have to obey, or any social duty we have to fulfill, is "oppression". The funny thing with your definition is that since men always had more roles and duties than women, it means men were always more "oppressed" than women. Also interesting in that since Western societies always had more rules and structures than African societies, it means white people always were more oppressed than black people.
Let's get real for a minute. Living in a society always come with rules we have to obey and roles we have to play. For example, like all men (and only men) of my generation, I was once a forced conscript. For a minimum of 10 months (I ended up doing 2 years), I had to train to insure the security of my country. According to your definition, this is oppression, particularly when we consider that the "salary" I was given was about $70 per month (and I had to use that "salary" to buy hygiene products like razors, since I was also forced to shave).
But the reality is it was not "oppression". It was just part of my social contract. I wanted to live in my society, I wanted to benefit from my society, therefore I had to contribute to that society and play the role my society needed me to play. It's as simple as that. The reason it was not oppression is because I could have left my society whenever I wanted. I could have chosen to live in the woods somewhere and never bother with civilization again. I didn't want to do that, so in the end, it was my choice, and therefore not oppression.
Feminism is not about freedom, it's about power. It's about changing society to give even more privileges, protection, and support to women. It's about giving a superior status to women, and it worked. Men are now nothing but second-class citizen.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should a foreign company be subjected to US imperialistic laws?
This should be a lesson for every company in the world : never depend on American technology. The first thing the new leadership of ZTE should do is now replace as fast as possible Qualcomm chips and Android in their devices.
I remember all the nice presentation in the 80s about Reagan's SDI. Turned out the vast majority of it was utter bullshit. The reality is the US lie at least as much as Russia about its weapon technology.
In the case hypersonic missiles, I believe Russia will very soon have them. Maybe not in 2020 like Putin said, but still very soon. Also, since I'm not American (I live in Canada), I tend to view the US as the bellicose country in the world, not Russia. I do believe the US might be tempted to attack Russia as the Sino-Russian alliance is becoming a major threat for the US world domination.
Considering the first thing a government must do before a war is to rally its population, I'd say that the best clue for a possible American attack is the constant anti-Russian rhetoric in the US since Obama. There is no such anti-American rhetoric in Russia.
It depends if your goal is to discourage a bellicose enemy to start a war, or if you are the bellicose party and hope to win a war.
There are three ways to control the world : military power, economic power, and cultural power. The US is still, by far, the first military power, but its cultural power has crumbled since the 90s, and it will soon lose its place as the first economic power to the Chinese. Because of that, it would be logical for the US to rely more and more on its military power to maintain its domination over the world. This bullshit about a "quantum radar" is simply because the Chinese are trying to restrain the use of military power from the US in order for them to achieve domination over the world through economic power.
People tend to believe what they want to believe. So by creating laws which are subject to interpretation, people interpret those laws according to what they want to believe, which makes them believe it's a good law, and they'll end up supporting (voting for) politicians creating those laws.
A man who believes he's really a woman and ends up mutilating his body is perfectly normal, but playing some video games a bit too much is a mental disorder.
It's a very sad world when a company has to treat every employee like a child who needs constant supervision. And of course, the really interesting question is who will supervise the supervisors? Will it be turtles all the way down?
How about we go back to a saner world when we considered adults as responsible for their own actions?
I'm someone who feels more alive when I don't feel safe and comfortable. That's for example why I love to go outdoor when it's cold and raining. That's why the best time of my life was when I was in the military. As for employment, I'm self-employed. Finally, I'm not sure what you mean with opportunity, but I certainly feel I'm less free now than in the past.
For me, the [current year] is bland, too authoritarian, and devoid of excitement. For me, the past was really better.
First, East Asians place a much greater value in hard work than those of European descent.
Second, the nobility had a lot more influence on European culture than the clergy. If you look at Islam, you'll see that Muslims still follow the Quran pretty much to the letter. That's not the case for Christianity at all. The reason is because Christianity had to adapt to European culture. Christianity is the product of European culture, it is not the cause of European culture. Qualifying European culture as "Christian culture" is really wrong.
Third, Jews were always an insignificant minority and for most of the time no one cared about them. Until recently, they were not considered as British, French or Germans, they were considered as Jews. Your excuse to use the word "Christian" as a way to separate Europeans from Jews doesn't make much sense.
The summary says, "though two cars ahead of her had moved forward". If they were ahead, they didn't have to go around her.
The ADL is a racist (anti-white) and ideologically motivated organization with very little credibility.
At the time, the people who chose to use the label alt-right were mostly a bunch of young men who were tired of the hypocrisy of politicians, as well as tired of the identity politics game that leftists are playing (which is nothing but racism and sexism). If anything, the majority of the alt-right were true anti-racist. When in 2017 the alt-right radicalized itself, most of the people using the label alt-right chose to rename themselves as the alt-light since they didn't want to be associated with the group anymore.
But hey! It's not like the truth matters anymore.
Forcing Chinese tech companies to have more diversity would be great news for tech companies in Western countries.
I have three cats, all of them were feral. It's true one was only about two months old when I got her, so she doesn't really count, but the other two were adults (one was about two years old, the other probably about five years old). Because of my experience, I can safely say you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Really? They don't want to roam the world? Leave your door open for a few hours and see what happens.
You asked a question ("What about the two Utility Patent Infringements?"), and you used insults. You never presented any kind of argument. Maybe you have one in your head, but I'm not a mind reader.
From my part, I just made the argument that your question was pretty much irrelevant to the subject, as it's only 1% of the amount Samsung has to pay.
Let me quote the article :
As I said, you don't have a point, and you know it. That's why you are using insults and other fallacies.
If you knew you had a point, you wouldn't feel the need to insult the person you are talking too.
Because as I already explained to you, "to accept" is a consequence of "not to mind", it is not the same concept. For example "being soaked" is a consequence of "taking a bath", yet, asking me to replace "being soaked" with "taking a bath" in a sentence would be absurd.
Listen. You lost badly in this discussion, and instead of admitting you were wrong, you are now just making a fool of yourself. The consequence of your ridiculous ego makes you look like a complete idiot.
One more thing. Since you obviously have psychological issues (I'm guessing autistic or narcissistic), here's one truth for you : being chivalrous won't get you laid. The time when women were rewarding chivalrous men with sex is now long gone. In our modern age, the only thing being chivalrous will get you is being abused by women. You will be treated as a loser and a creep, and the only result is you'll end up bitter and despising women.
Have a nice day.
If a woman "doesn't mind" that a man is chivalrous to her, if she doesn't say "no", then she has to do something in return. If she has no intention of reciprocating, she must say "no". If she doesn't, she's just an abuser who deserves no respect.
I already explained to you why "not mind" necessarily means "to accept". I won't repeat myself.
Anyway, since you insist... If a woman "doesn't mind" that a man is chivalrous to her, if she doesn't say "no", then she has to do something in return. If she has no intention of reciprocating, she must say "no". If she doesn't, she's just an abuser who deserves no respect.
As for your example of holding a door, this is not "chivalry", this is just basic courtesy. I expect women to hold the door for me too.
BTW, if a woman wait for me to open the door for her, I will go before her and I will close the door behind me. I'm not a servant. When I was a virgin who was desperate for sex, I would do a lot of stupid "chivalrous" shit, but that was a very long time ago.
So you suspect the coal miner who was working 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, and who could see the sun only on Sundays was happier than his wife who was staying at home raising children? Really?
Your definition of "oppression" also includes duties people had to fulfill, and blacks in Western society had fewer duties to fulfill. You have to realize that white people never had anything for free. Every "privilege" that you believe white people was associated with duties.
As I explained, this was part of my social contract. Being a citizen implies we have to fulfill our roles to maintain society. Without forcing people to do their duties in order to maintain society, there is no society. You are Canadian, so you didn't have to do a military service, but it doesn't change that you have to obey a lot of rules and do a lot of tasks for your society.
Because different groups of people don't have the same abilities or the same way to view things (either because of biology or group culture), therefore different roles should be assigned to different groups.
While I was doing my mandatory military service, I saw a total of three women who chose to do a voluntary military service, as well as a few professional female soldiers. Let me be blunt, those women should not have been allowed in the military. They didn't have the physical strength to accomplish their roles, nor the psychological resilience to endure the training. They had to be exempted from the most rigorous training. They had to be given special privileges.
More importantly, they were destroying the social cohesion of the group. Not only because of their special privileges, but also because when things were beginning to get tough, they used sexual seduction to get help from men, and the result was infighting between men in the wild hope of getting sex. The reality is women in the military are destructive. I do think women could play some roles in the military, but only as civilians.
Another group that was virtually exempted from military service were Muslims. Things like Ramadan means a Muslim also has to be given special privileges (mainly because they don't have the right to drink water between sunrise and sunset, meaning forcing them to participate to exercise during Ramadan could lead to dehydration), so the army preferred to exempt Muslims from conscription.
You don't think the government taking your hard-earned money is oppression? I gave two years of my life to do my military service, but considering I pay about 50% taxes, I gave a lot more than two years of my life in taxes.
Can you give me examples of roles that are attributed according to eye color? I can't think of any.
In a community where the leaders personally know each member of the communit
My statement is a logical conclusion based on your premise. "Accept" is the logical conclusion of the premise "don't mind". For obvious reasons, I can't replace a logical conclusion with the premise (if I could then it would it would indicate circular reasoning, which is a fallacy).
In effect, what you are asking me is to avoid stating any logical conclusion based on your premises, that is you don't want me to say anything about the consequences of your premise. Sorry, but I won't do that. I will educate you and show you what are the consequences of your premises.
For the second time, my point is a woman who accepts the chivalrous act of a man, implicitly accepts the duty to reciprocate one way or another. Do you agree with that point?
Please, stop making a fool of yourself and answer that question.
If you don't mind people being wrong on the Internet, then obviously you don't do anything against it, which means you accept it. It seems to me you are confusing the concept of "encouraging it" with the concept of "accepting it".
Again, when someone doesn't mind something, then logically that person necessarily accept that thing. For example, I don't mind homosexuality, therefore you can conclude I'm not trying to forbid it, therefore you can conclude I accept it. On the other hand, I do mind pedophilia, meaning I do not accept it and therefore I will try to forbid it.
Anyway, my point is a woman who accepts the chivalrous act of a man, implicitly accepts the duty to reciprocate one way or another. Do you agree with that point?
According to your definition, any social rule we have to obey, or any social duty we have to fulfill, is "oppression". The funny thing with your definition is that since men always had more roles and duties than women, it means men were always more "oppressed" than women. Also interesting in that since Western societies always had more rules and structures than African societies, it means white people always were more oppressed than black people.
Let's get real for a minute. Living in a society always come with rules we have to obey and roles we have to play. For example, like all men (and only men) of my generation, I was once a forced conscript. For a minimum of 10 months (I ended up doing 2 years), I had to train to insure the security of my country. According to your definition, this is oppression, particularly when we consider that the "salary" I was given was about $70 per month (and I had to use that "salary" to buy hygiene products like razors, since I was also forced to shave).
But the reality is it was not "oppression". It was just part of my social contract. I wanted to live in my society, I wanted to benefit from my society, therefore I had to contribute to that society and play the role my society needed me to play. It's as simple as that. The reason it was not oppression is because I could have left my society whenever I wanted. I could have chosen to live in the woods somewhere and never bother with civilization again. I didn't want to do that, so in the end, it was my choice, and therefore not oppression.
Feminism is not about freedom, it's about power. It's about changing society to give even more privileges, protection, and support to women. It's about giving a superior status to women, and it worked. Men are now nothing but second-class citizen.
"Not mind" necessarily means to accept.