Don't forget that many members of Congress, and late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had children serving as well. False claims about that were also circulated.
DeBeers' marketing no less. Diamonds weren't very popular before DeBeers took over. Rubies and sapphires were far more desirable on account of being prettier. But now, "every kiss begins at Kay", and even the cheapest of the shittiest diamonds, brown, have been rebranded as "chocolate", and the prices jacked up.
Did you know they're responsible for diamonds being the only gem used in engagement rings? Before they took control of all the diamonds, colorful gems were preferred. Diamonds just weren't pretty enough to put on pretty ladies.
Because it sounds like screen to side ratio. Shouldn't screen to body refer to how much of the phone is screen vs. non-screen components? Or at least what % of the phone is covered by screen?
You can't replace your low end option with one you still call "Pro" and have it mean anything. Not that calling a 13" laptop "professional" makes any sense anyhow.
At least they're using the latest hardware for once, lending some credence to their pricing. What, really? These aren't using the latest hardware? Well shit, that's a ripoff.
That touchstrip is pretty cool though. Not sure that justifies the price though. Aside from the SSD (which were too expensive at the time) and display resolution, it's spec'd the same or lower than my almost 2 year old 15" M2800, which had a retail price of $1200 for when it came out.
Not only do I know how they relate on the spectrum, I know that the spectrum is frameless and bears no objective scale. So, both the origin and magnitude are relative to the society under consideration. For example, the terms liberal and conservative are distinct from Liberal and Conservative. In America, the Liberal and Conservative ideologies are both quite liberal in relation to humanity's political history; while the origin of the American spectrum is to the right of a European nation like France.
As there is no objective metric for scale, what would be very authoritarian in America still falls short of the total authority of someone like Hitler, or the Kim family of the DPRK. Thanks to the Constitution, there are hard limits on authority, so even the most authoritarian President conceivable could not approach that level, and if a politician was of that same mold the first thing they would set their sites on would be the 22nd amendment. Something no American politician has done since its passing.
Furthermore, the assessment is qualitative, not quantitative (though political scientists are working to quantify), and suffers from high degrees of subjectivity. For example, people have called Trump's position on abortion authoritarian, yet his stated preference (recently anyhow) is that it should be a State rather than Federal matter, which means ceding, not increasing, authority.
Finally, that's the worst presentation of the spectrum I have yet to encounter. It assigns an arbitrary origin without identifying it as such, and conflates ideology and policy. Did you know that in terms of policy, between 2000 and 2008 the median Republican was center-left?
Two characteristics? Is that all it takes? Well, if that's your metric, you might as well go ahead and describe everyone as "like Hitler". Obama has been described as divisive and authoritarian, his opponents in Congress have been described as divisive and authoritarian. Hell, nowadays, it seems like every politician is described as divisive and authoritarian by at least a quarter of voters. Hillary certainly has.
Uh-oh, Hillary also uses advertising to make herself look good and her opposition look bad. Just like Hitler! Oh no! She even has two arms, legs, hands, feet, eyes, and fewer than two testicles, JUST LIKE HITLER!
When an American politician establishes their own army to patrol the streets and crush opposition; when they hold Nuremberg scale rallies; when they adopt a policy of territorial expansion, eyeing Canada for its shared ethnic and cultural roots; when instead of debating an opponent they have them beaten; when they claim an ethnic group lost its psychic powers through interbreeding with other groups - then you can begin to make a valid comparison to Hitler.
If you'll notice, no one has disputed the veracity of the emails. If the emails were faked or altered, the DNC and Clinton campaign would be all over the place driving that home. Instead they're making nebulous statements about how we shouldn't trust them because of the source, suggesting there may be forgeries or alterations but without ever saying so outright. Which is as far as they can go if they know the emails are all legit.
Look, his quote about Mexico came off as racist. He was talking about illegal immigration and the cartels, but the way he said it came out pretty bad, possibly worse than he intended, perhaps exactly how he felt. I can't be sure. At the same time, he did something Hitler never would have - he said he loves Mexicans, that they're great people and a great country. Hitler never said anything positive about the Jews.
In fact, Trump's stated position on women, blacks, Mexicans and Muslims is that he loves them. To my knowledge, he has never said anything derogatory about women in general (only specific women he didn't get along with), and what has been framed as anti-black statements were in fact criticisms of Democrats for failing the black community. His stated policies regarding Muslims are directed against terrorists, not Muslims in general; just as his policy regarding Mexicans is directed at illegal immigration, not Mexicans or Mexican immigrants in general.
Contrast that with Hitler, whose policies regarding Jews, Gypsies, and other "mud peoples" (what a dick that guy was), were always directed against the whole. Who never said anything nice about those groups or walked back a statement about them. There is no comparison between Trump and Hitler. The breadth and scope of the National Socialist agenda would blow your mind. Trump has a platform of economic nationalism. Hitler intended to completely and fundamentally reshape humanity and reality itself. To compare them is madness.
Your logic is flawed. Hitler explicitly stated that he hates Jews and that they all had to go, but only implied that he would gas them. Trump has not explicitly stated that he is racist, therefore he is.
He made no secret of his hatred of Jews, or his desire to purge them from Europe and European bloodlines. They were major themes of his going back to before he wrote them down in Mein Kampf.
I agree. It's an incredibly deceptive rhetorical tactic that the left uses with irritating frequency. Questions get reframed to suggest that the only possible motivation one could have to disagree is hate for some specific group. The right uses it too, generally in the form, "if you disagree you hate America", but less often in general, and far less often from ranking politicians.
Well, we already have seen technology replace the human brain. You even italicized an example - Excel, the continuation of an evolutionary process that began with scribes performing calculations by hand, then by slide-rule, then with mechanical calculators, then electronic, and finally, computerized spreadsheets that perform complex accounting tasks that once required rooms full of clerks with calculators. And don't even get me started on statistical analysis! Ever try to find correlations by performing linear regressions by hand? Of course not!
Shouldn't they be suing the carriers who continued to charge customers even when they knew the phones they sold their customers couldn't be used? Let the carriers sue Samsung if they can/want.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you know what Fascism is, what it means, or what the underlying political philosophy is. Ditto for Socialism.
Don't forget that many members of Congress, and late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had children serving as well. False claims about that were also circulated.
I don't really have anything else to add. Just wanted to add my voice to the chorus.
DeBeers' marketing no less. Diamonds weren't very popular before DeBeers took over. Rubies and sapphires were far more desirable on account of being prettier. But now, "every kiss begins at Kay", and even the cheapest of the shittiest diamonds, brown, have been rebranded as "chocolate", and the prices jacked up.
Did you know they're responsible for diamonds being the only gem used in engagement rings? Before they took control of all the diamonds, colorful gems were preferred. Diamonds just weren't pretty enough to put on pretty ladies.
Remember this - You are going to die. Life is fleeting and has but one conclusion. We are all temporary, we will all be forgotten.
Because it sounds like screen to side ratio. Shouldn't screen to body refer to how much of the phone is screen vs. non-screen components? Or at least what % of the phone is covered by screen?
The existence of which my users of either platform are unaware.
http://www.people-press.org/20...
But do they get it? I support both, and in my experience Macs minimize neither task time nor trouble time.
At least they're using the latest hardware for once, lending some credence to their pricing. What, really? These aren't using the latest hardware? Well shit, that's a ripoff.
That touchstrip is pretty cool though. Not sure that justifies the price though. Aside from the SSD (which were too expensive at the time) and display resolution, it's spec'd the same or lower than my almost 2 year old 15" M2800, which had a retail price of $1200 for when it came out.
we're Apple! We aren't even compatible with ourselves.
As there is no objective metric for scale, what would be very authoritarian in America still falls short of the total authority of someone like Hitler, or the Kim family of the DPRK. Thanks to the Constitution, there are hard limits on authority, so even the most authoritarian President conceivable could not approach that level, and if a politician was of that same mold the first thing they would set their sites on would be the 22nd amendment. Something no American politician has done since its passing.
Furthermore, the assessment is qualitative, not quantitative (though political scientists are working to quantify), and suffers from high degrees of subjectivity. For example, people have called Trump's position on abortion authoritarian, yet his stated preference (recently anyhow) is that it should be a State rather than Federal matter, which means ceding, not increasing, authority.
Finally, that's the worst presentation of the spectrum I have yet to encounter. It assigns an arbitrary origin without identifying it as such, and conflates ideology and policy. Did you know that in terms of policy, between 2000 and 2008 the median Republican was center-left?
Damn, beat to the punch...
Uh-oh, Hillary also uses advertising to make herself look good and her opposition look bad. Just like Hitler! Oh no! She even has two arms, legs, hands, feet, eyes, and fewer than two testicles, JUST LIKE HITLER!
When an American politician establishes their own army to patrol the streets and crush opposition; when they hold Nuremberg scale rallies; when they adopt a policy of territorial expansion, eyeing Canada for its shared ethnic and cultural roots; when instead of debating an opponent they have them beaten; when they claim an ethnic group lost its psychic powers through interbreeding with other groups - then you can begin to make a valid comparison to Hitler.
If you'll notice, no one has disputed the veracity of the emails. If the emails were faked or altered, the DNC and Clinton campaign would be all over the place driving that home. Instead they're making nebulous statements about how we shouldn't trust them because of the source, suggesting there may be forgeries or alterations but without ever saying so outright. Which is as far as they can go if they know the emails are all legit.
I wonder if Lessig would be singing the same tune if it was the GOP being embarrassed by leaks instead of his friends.
In fact, Trump's stated position on women, blacks, Mexicans and Muslims is that he loves them. To my knowledge, he has never said anything derogatory about women in general (only specific women he didn't get along with), and what has been framed as anti-black statements were in fact criticisms of Democrats for failing the black community. His stated policies regarding Muslims are directed against terrorists, not Muslims in general; just as his policy regarding Mexicans is directed at illegal immigration, not Mexicans or Mexican immigrants in general.
Contrast that with Hitler, whose policies regarding Jews, Gypsies, and other "mud peoples" (what a dick that guy was), were always directed against the whole. Who never said anything nice about those groups or walked back a statement about them. There is no comparison between Trump and Hitler. The breadth and scope of the National Socialist agenda would blow your mind. Trump has a platform of economic nationalism. Hitler intended to completely and fundamentally reshape humanity and reality itself. To compare them is madness.
How the hell does that work?
He made no secret of his hatred of Jews, or his desire to purge them from Europe and European bloodlines. They were major themes of his going back to before he wrote them down in Mein Kampf.
I agree. It's an incredibly deceptive rhetorical tactic that the left uses with irritating frequency. Questions get reframed to suggest that the only possible motivation one could have to disagree is hate for some specific group. The right uses it too, generally in the form, "if you disagree you hate America", but less often in general, and far less often from ranking politicians.
Dang... Okay, good point. I guess you could re-fizz it with nitrogen though.
Well, we already have seen technology replace the human brain. You even italicized an example - Excel, the continuation of an evolutionary process that began with scribes performing calculations by hand, then by slide-rule, then with mechanical calculators, then electronic, and finally, computerized spreadsheets that perform complex accounting tasks that once required rooms full of clerks with calculators. And don't even get me started on statistical analysis! Ever try to find correlations by performing linear regressions by hand? Of course not!
Live in a State that mandates a silly low alcohol content for your beer? Drop in the catalyst, hook it to a battery and voila! Problem solved.
Shouldn't they be suing the carriers who continued to charge customers even when they knew the phones they sold their customers couldn't be used? Let the carriers sue Samsung if they can/want.