I fully understand what the Constitution says. But in practice you need permits to bear arms in many places in the US. You're not making any points against what I'm saying... are you trying to say you disagree with the permits required? If that is the case, then fine. But your post really feels like you are trying to insist that in the US you can bear arms anywhere without a permit, and you will not be arrested, and that is simply not true.
>You have the right to bear arms (typically hand guns for self defense) and free speech anywhere in the US
Well most states require a permit to carry a gun, and in some others you need an additional permit just to buy one, so... I don't see how you are correct
While I do agree that you shouldn't need a permit to exercise your constitutional rights, there is sadly plenty of precedents that say otherwise. In almost all states (although a bit ironically here, not in Vermont) you need at least one permit if not more to exercise yous second amendment rights to bear arms, and in many cities you need a permit to exercise your first amendment right to protest.
The columnist misses the point. No one is complaining that $99.99/month for 700 channels they want isn't a good deal, people are complaining that they are paying $99.99/month for the 3 or 4 channels they want, and they get 696 channels thrown in that they don't want. The problem for most people is not the value of the channels (although that certainly is it's own debate), the problem is you have to buy all this stuff you don't want just to get the little you do want.
How would you feel if you only had one place you could go to for ice cream, and even though you only want one scoop of vanilla and one scoop of chocolate, you are forced to buy one scoop of ever flavor and pay $50? That business model wouldn't work, even if it were a monopoly, because people realize they don't need ice cream *that* badly. And people are starting to realize they don't need TV *that* badly, either, especially since their need for video content is being more and more fulfilled by the internet.
If something has 1000 reviews, I know that the bulk of those are likely to be legitimate. If someone has 3 reviews, I have no idea how accurate the reviews are. More reviews = more sample data of user experience, and more data means that "wrong" reviews (reviews that don't reflect the user experience) are obscured.
If you were presented with 2 studies where one used a sample of 5 people and the other used a sample of 5000 people, which results would you trust more? Reviews are just a less controlled study.
I'm going to place my money on the fact that sugar is highly addictive, and people who are susceptible to addiction will be attracted to both sugary energy drinks, and other substances.
He is certainly doing a lot of good in the world, and we should be thankful for that. But what we shouldn't do (and if I recall Bill Gates has said this as well), is hold him as some sort of hero, since when he donates, he's not really sacrificing his own personal comfort or anything in doing so. What Bill Gates is doing makes him a charitable person, but it doesn't make him a great person.
No, as far as public appearance goes, Google's best move would have been to never even acknowledged the essay. Let it leak, whatever. This thing has gotten 100x more news time because Google decided to respond to it instead of just let it die out.
I would assume that even internally, responding to this was still a mistake on Google's part. They basically took a guy who complained that Google didn't tolerate different ideological ideas, and fired him for having different ideological ideas. If you are a conservative working at Google, no longer do you wonder if your ideologies could hurt your career - Google has made it clear that they will.
Google shot themselves in the foot the moment they publicly replied to the memo. The only winning move from the start was not to acknowledge it in the first place, and then if they wanted, fire him down the road for whatever reason. Instead Google could not stop themselves from showing they were ideologically motivated, just as this memo accuses them of.
"sad news for anyone who'd prefer to not have to lug around an entire phone to listen to music."
Yeah because the only reason people carry a phone with them everywhere is so they have their music library with them.
Well the reason people are more ready to put their trust in private businesses over the government is because if a business tries to screw you over, they have to answer to the government. In theory the government has to answer to another part of the government, but the government can screw you over much more easily than private business can.
Would you rather take your bank to court over wrongful billing, or take the IRS to court over wrongful billing? In that matter, would you rather go to your local bank and talk to someone to get a billing error fixed, or find a way to work with the IRS to get a billing error fixed?
Sorry but I would rather not have to download a specific Apple program and create an Apple account and give Apple personal info, just for the sake of putting a ringtone on my personal device. And then pay Apple an extremely high profit margin just to do it. It amazes how much Apple fans will put off with, and then make the claim "well it's just so easy and it just works". OK, well Android is also easy, and just works, and can be learned with the same amount of minimal effort that. Truth be told, Apple and Android devices are both fully functional phones. One relies heavily on proprietary software and formats and has an extremely high profit margin, the other uses industry standards and costs a lot less. You can tell me that Apple is easy to use all day long, and I won't argue the point, because it's moot.
I'd be willing to bet our CEO and the majority of other higher-ups who are self important will want one ASAP. After all, Apple products are, by and large, a status symbol, not something you buy because it's actually worth what you pay for it.
How exactly does giving raises to poor performers, or making it incredibly difficult to fire employees that hurt the functionality of a group, equate to greasing the gears of a smooth operation?
Unions are not for the benefit of the organization. They are not for the benefit of the public/ They are solely for the benefit of the employees. Any major union's purpose is to have as many members paying dues as possible, and that will always be their primary motivator.
I think you need to look up what "slavery" actually is. Your flippant use of the word is an abhorrent insult to people past and present who are actually enslaved.
>Until we have union-like protections for all workers
You mean like the long list of labor laws that have been created since unions came in to existence? Or do you mean the right to get a pay raise completely independent from your performance (because why excel at your job when you can get the same benefit doing the bare minimum), or the right to not be fired at will but still be allowed to quit at will (fairness is one way street after all). Please, tell us specifically what you mean.
The minute you get a dungeons and dragons style game, or some similar type of RPG, people will be all over it. Hunting for weapons, armor, or items, having random game generated dungeons that have varying minimum level requirements, and/or possible minimum party size, have classes that can be used to solo or have a party dynamic as well, and you will see the next big hit in VR gaming.
Maybe it doesn't feel like it in the US, but their Bemani division (the division that produces all of their rhythm games like Dance Dance Revolution, Pop'n Music, Beatmania IIDX, etc) seems to be doing quite well. Beatmania IIDX just came out with it's 24th arcade installment this year and shows no signs of stopping.
I'm not sure if you've read the New Testament, but it kinda outright says you should be loving everyone even if they hate on you. Perhaps you are confusing it with sections of the Old Testament, which had specific instances of God instructing the Isrealites to go to war and take out other nations (and not permission for them to make that call themselves), or the Law of the Old Testament which had legal punishments that were for the Isrealites to govern themselves, not to use on foreigners.
People who claim that Christianity supports killing non-believers (or blasphemers, or whatever) are people who have never actually read the Bible (or grossly misunderstood it on a basic level)
Slashdot Mirror
I fully understand what the Constitution says. But in practice you need permits to bear arms in many places in the US. You're not making any points against what I'm saying... are you trying to say you disagree with the permits required? If that is the case, then fine. But your post really feels like you are trying to insist that in the US you can bear arms anywhere without a permit, and you will not be arrested, and that is simply not true.
>You have the right to bear arms (typically hand guns for self defense) and free speech anywhere in the US
Well most states require a permit to carry a gun, and in some others you need an additional permit just to buy one, so... I don't see how you are correct
In all fairness, you don't need a permit to buy a gun in Vermont
While I do agree that you shouldn't need a permit to exercise your constitutional rights, there is sadly plenty of precedents that say otherwise. In almost all states (although a bit ironically here, not in Vermont) you need at least one permit if not more to exercise yous second amendment rights to bear arms, and in many cities you need a permit to exercise your first amendment right to protest.
...If we destroy it first
The columnist misses the point. No one is complaining that $99.99/month for 700 channels they want isn't a good deal, people are complaining that they are paying $99.99/month for the 3 or 4 channels they want, and they get 696 channels thrown in that they don't want. The problem for most people is not the value of the channels (although that certainly is it's own debate), the problem is you have to buy all this stuff you don't want just to get the little you do want.
How would you feel if you only had one place you could go to for ice cream, and even though you only want one scoop of vanilla and one scoop of chocolate, you are forced to buy one scoop of ever flavor and pay $50? That business model wouldn't work, even if it were a monopoly, because people realize they don't need ice cream *that* badly. And people are starting to realize they don't need TV *that* badly, either, especially since their need for video content is being more and more fulfilled by the internet.
If something has 1000 reviews, I know that the bulk of those are likely to be legitimate. If someone has 3 reviews, I have no idea how accurate the reviews are. More reviews = more sample data of user experience, and more data means that "wrong" reviews (reviews that don't reflect the user experience) are obscured. If you were presented with 2 studies where one used a sample of 5 people and the other used a sample of 5000 people, which results would you trust more? Reviews are just a less controlled study.
Or more generally speaking,you cannot have authorized access without possible unauthorized access
I'm going to place my money on the fact that sugar is highly addictive, and people who are susceptible to addiction will be attracted to both sugary energy drinks, and other substances.
He is certainly doing a lot of good in the world, and we should be thankful for that. But what we shouldn't do (and if I recall Bill Gates has said this as well), is hold him as some sort of hero, since when he donates, he's not really sacrificing his own personal comfort or anything in doing so. What Bill Gates is doing makes him a charitable person, but it doesn't make him a great person.
No, as far as public appearance goes, Google's best move would have been to never even acknowledged the essay. Let it leak, whatever. This thing has gotten 100x more news time because Google decided to respond to it instead of just let it die out. I would assume that even internally, responding to this was still a mistake on Google's part. They basically took a guy who complained that Google didn't tolerate different ideological ideas, and fired him for having different ideological ideas. If you are a conservative working at Google, no longer do you wonder if your ideologies could hurt your career - Google has made it clear that they will.
And here we see a fine example of the "tolerant liberal"
You realize the guy identifies as liberal, right?
Agreed. And if you read the memo you would understand that nothing even remotely close to that was said. But anything to attack republicans, eh?
Google shot themselves in the foot the moment they publicly replied to the memo. The only winning move from the start was not to acknowledge it in the first place, and then if they wanted, fire him down the road for whatever reason. Instead Google could not stop themselves from showing they were ideologically motivated, just as this memo accuses them of.
"sad news for anyone who'd prefer to not have to lug around an entire phone to listen to music." Yeah because the only reason people carry a phone with them everywhere is so they have their music library with them.
Well the reason people are more ready to put their trust in private businesses over the government is because if a business tries to screw you over, they have to answer to the government. In theory the government has to answer to another part of the government, but the government can screw you over much more easily than private business can. Would you rather take your bank to court over wrongful billing, or take the IRS to court over wrongful billing? In that matter, would you rather go to your local bank and talk to someone to get a billing error fixed, or find a way to work with the IRS to get a billing error fixed?
Sorry but I would rather not have to download a specific Apple program and create an Apple account and give Apple personal info, just for the sake of putting a ringtone on my personal device. And then pay Apple an extremely high profit margin just to do it. It amazes how much Apple fans will put off with, and then make the claim "well it's just so easy and it just works". OK, well Android is also easy, and just works, and can be learned with the same amount of minimal effort that. Truth be told, Apple and Android devices are both fully functional phones. One relies heavily on proprietary software and formats and has an extremely high profit margin, the other uses industry standards and costs a lot less. You can tell me that Apple is easy to use all day long, and I won't argue the point, because it's moot.
I'd be willing to bet our CEO and the majority of other higher-ups who are self important will want one ASAP. After all, Apple products are, by and large, a status symbol, not something you buy because it's actually worth what you pay for it.
How exactly does giving raises to poor performers, or making it incredibly difficult to fire employees that hurt the functionality of a group, equate to greasing the gears of a smooth operation? Unions are not for the benefit of the organization. They are not for the benefit of the public/ They are solely for the benefit of the employees. Any major union's purpose is to have as many members paying dues as possible, and that will always be their primary motivator.
I think you need to look up what "slavery" actually is. Your flippant use of the word is an abhorrent insult to people past and present who are actually enslaved.
>Until we have union-like protections for all workers You mean like the long list of labor laws that have been created since unions came in to existence? Or do you mean the right to get a pay raise completely independent from your performance (because why excel at your job when you can get the same benefit doing the bare minimum), or the right to not be fired at will but still be allowed to quit at will (fairness is one way street after all). Please, tell us specifically what you mean.
The minute you get a dungeons and dragons style game, or some similar type of RPG, people will be all over it. Hunting for weapons, armor, or items, having random game generated dungeons that have varying minimum level requirements, and/or possible minimum party size, have classes that can be used to solo or have a party dynamic as well, and you will see the next big hit in VR gaming.
Maybe it doesn't feel like it in the US, but their Bemani division (the division that produces all of their rhythm games like Dance Dance Revolution, Pop'n Music, Beatmania IIDX, etc) seems to be doing quite well. Beatmania IIDX just came out with it's 24th arcade installment this year and shows no signs of stopping.
I'm not sure if you've read the New Testament, but it kinda outright says you should be loving everyone even if they hate on you. Perhaps you are confusing it with sections of the Old Testament, which had specific instances of God instructing the Isrealites to go to war and take out other nations (and not permission for them to make that call themselves), or the Law of the Old Testament which had legal punishments that were for the Isrealites to govern themselves, not to use on foreigners. People who claim that Christianity supports killing non-believers (or blasphemers, or whatever) are people who have never actually read the Bible (or grossly misunderstood it on a basic level)