I agree a lot of it is hype, but apparently hype worth putting down $1000 for. As noted here, the top selling electric vehicles are selling about 30,000 units per year. Four times that amount were pre-ordered and it hasn't even been a full day yet.
This specific product isn't available yet but their other products are, and people like what they see. This isn't like Google Glass, the demand is real.
I think politifact does a much better job debunking the claims of corruption than I could, and since you referenced it I'll assume you don't have a problem with the information. For your reference, here is the different ratings that Politifact gives, and what they actually mean.
TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.
MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.
HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. (in this case, the "different impression" is that there was nothing unusual going on)
FALSE – The statement is not accurate.
PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.
As to your statements... all are perfectly normal things in your electoral system. The fact that your system works like that is perhaps corruption itself, but none of that makes any of the claims in the ad true.
Just take a look at gun control and the patriot act. Both republicans and democrats, in general, fall on opposite sides of the gun control debate - however both presidents have made extensive use of the Patriot Act and NSA privacy invasions. The US reaction to 9/11 messed up your country very bad, it will be another generation before you stop seeing authoritarian power grabs from any mainstream party regardless of their stance on other issues. And gun control is really just a social issue, and if the government regulates it more or less, it has zero impact on their overall control of the population.
My stance on gun control is not relevant, which is exactly the point I'm trying to make. A person's stance on gun-control is not an indicator of whether they support a more authoritarian state in general, which is what the GP implies.
1) rebuild the credibility of climate scientists by providing clear, simple data that isn't presented in an alarmist way
The scientists are quite credible (most of them). It's the media that is presenting the alarmism.
CNN: "So, Scientist, what is the absolute worst case scenario that could happen?" Scientist: "Hmm, well, the absolute worst case scenario, which is extremely unlikely to occur, is X. However we are far more likely to see something in the range of Y to Z." CNN Headline: Scientists predict X could occur!
I've always found it odd that the people who are most afraid of non-state actors carrying are usually the ones who also want more and more State and centralized power and authority. Thoughts?
My thoughts are that you like guns and for some reason you think that pro gun-control people are the only ones who want more power over you.
I think holding a DS4 in one hand would be very uncomfortable for my limp gamer hands - I think it would take far more muscle engagement for a single hand to stabilize the controller. Also what about buttons? A DS4 has 8 buttons which might be part of the game (4 buttons, 4 bumpers), more if you include the analog stick press. If you limit to mouse and analog side you probably have at most 6 (two bumpers and 4 mouse buttons). Having a keyboard for the left hand gives you access to plenty of keys.
Handicapping is placing someone at an intentional disadvantage, and on consoles the exact opposite is happening.
I think it's arguable either way - e.g. Bungie "intentionally" did not support mouse/keyboard on a platform that natively supports it. As for aim assist, I consider it a crutch that is necessary just to make games playable with controllers for the average player.
While technically true, the implementation was terrible. Mouse/keyboard didn't work well or consistently across games, was only supported by a couple games, and also had issues with all but the simplest devices. I tried playing FF7: Dirge of Cerberus (FPS) with a mouse and keyboard but the movements were erratic and unstable.
Fast forward to today where modern consoles have real mouse/keyboard support built in, and the game developers still won't support it because it would give an unfair advantage (see Destiny). Anyone buying a device to emulate mouse/keyboard support is considered a cheater by the handicapped controller users.
Mmk I apologize a bit for that post. I think you were actually making the general religious argument but using Islam as the particular religion in your example.
even many moderate muslims who wouldn't dream of stooping to violence themselves would vote for sharia law if it was brought to a vote
Guess what, the gay marriage bans in the US weren't legislated by Muslims. The legislation requiring teaching Creationism in some US states wasn't created by Muslims either. I bet a lot of religious people supported those laws.
Whether or not you're in the US, I frankly call bullshit that you don't have non-muslim people in your country trying to enshrine their own morals in law. Either that stuff gets laughed out of the building (one can only hope), gets voted down later, or you don't think about it because you personally agree with it. The fact that some Muslims might support laws that prop up their religion is completely irrelevant, because it's not a problem specific to Muslims.
most bars carry only beers from one giant distributor or the other
This is changing up here too, but not in the big franchises or restaurants that are more about standard food fare. Most locally owned pubs sell some, and there are very many craft breweries springing up. Part of the problem is laws around distribution which drives up costs (in Ontario at least), but progress is being made to dismantle the oligopoly.
This is true in Ottawa, however those rights-of-way are very specific and would not apply at all in this scenario. In Ottawa the law is that you have to yield to a bus attempting to merge into your lane from the right side. This is to allow the bus to pull out from a stop after picking up passengers. It is necessary because buses accelerate slowly and on busier roads they need others to yield to let them merge safely. There is a yield sign clearly affixed to the extreme left side of the bus's rear panel.
I've had similar circumstances though never such a close call yet, mostly because I am familiar with the intersection and know to watch for it. On my daily commute there is an intersection with a right-hand turning lane which becomes available about 100 feet from the intersection. The roadway itself has a wide paved shoulder which is clearly marked. Often traffic backs up from the red light, and people further back who want to turn right will drive down the shoulder to access the turning lane - I've seen people do at least 100 feet on the shoulder, passing other cars like my own already signalling the turn but waiting for proper clearance. In general I don't think it is a bad thing when traffic is very slow and the people doing this go slowly and carefully, because it does get them on their way sooner and out line up going straight. But this is an 80 kph road and the occasional asshole doesn't slow down while doing it.
A country has to be able to make some sacrifices and work together.
This made me laugh. The internal party debates for leadership clearly show your politicians can't work together even when they're on the same team. But if you vote in Trump you're more likely to have other wars to deal with before civil war becomes a problem.
On a related note, what exactly is it that makes these "trained professionals" better at texting while driving than the general public? Do they go through specialized training where they learn techniques of scanning the road while manipulating the phone?
In my readings on the case it was not texting per se, he was actually communicating using his laptop's messaging application with another officer, though it was not duty-related. They are probably actually trained on acceptable use while driving, and acceptable use does allow operation while driving. I would agree with the idea that due to whatever level of training they get, they are at least somewhat less of a risk than your average texter, but that might be cancelled out by frequency of use. Only stats would show if there really is less risk, or any benefit to allowing it. Regardless, in my opinion, he should have been charged since his use of the system was not duty-related.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree a lot of it is hype, but apparently hype worth putting down $1000 for. As noted here, the top selling electric vehicles are selling about 30,000 units per year. Four times that amount were pre-ordered and it hasn't even been a full day yet.
This specific product isn't available yet but their other products are, and people like what they see. This isn't like Google Glass, the demand is real.
I think politifact does a much better job debunking the claims of corruption than I could, and since you referenced it I'll assume you don't have a problem with the information. For your reference, here is the different ratings that Politifact gives, and what they actually mean.
TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.
MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.
HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.
MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. (in this case, the "different impression" is that there was nothing unusual going on)
FALSE – The statement is not accurate.
PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.
As to your statements... all are perfectly normal things in your electoral system. The fact that your system works like that is perhaps corruption itself, but none of that makes any of the claims in the ad true.
Just take a look at gun control and the patriot act. Both republicans and democrats, in general, fall on opposite sides of the gun control debate - however both presidents have made extensive use of the Patriot Act and NSA privacy invasions. The US reaction to 9/11 messed up your country very bad, it will be another generation before you stop seeing authoritarian power grabs from any mainstream party regardless of their stance on other issues. And gun control is really just a social issue, and if the government regulates it more or less, it has zero impact on their overall control of the population.
More like this [youtu.be]. And, yeah, it is true [politifact.com] — if Politifact would not flat-out deny it, you can be certain, it is true.
Did you even read your poiltifact link? The last line in the article is: "We rate this ad's claim Mostly False."
My stance on gun control is not relevant, which is exactly the point I'm trying to make. A person's stance on gun-control is not an indicator of whether they support a more authoritarian state in general, which is what the GP implies.
1) rebuild the credibility of climate scientists by providing clear, simple data that isn't presented in an alarmist way
The scientists are quite credible (most of them). It's the media that is presenting the alarmism.
CNN: "So, Scientist, what is the absolute worst case scenario that could happen?"
Scientist: "Hmm, well, the absolute worst case scenario, which is extremely unlikely to occur, is X. However we are far more likely to see something in the range of Y to Z."
CNN Headline: Scientists predict X could occur!
Nice comparison. +1 if I had 'em.
I've always found it odd that the people who are most afraid of non-state actors carrying are usually the ones who also want more and more State and centralized power and authority. Thoughts?
My thoughts are that you like guns and for some reason you think that pro gun-control people are the only ones who want more power over you.
the next police officer I flagged down
Was the previous police officer the guy that assaulted you?
So Samsung is the aircraft carrier and the employees are the pirates?
Facebook dropping support is new.
I think holding a DS4 in one hand would be very uncomfortable for my limp gamer hands - I think it would take far more muscle engagement for a single hand to stabilize the controller. Also what about buttons? A DS4 has 8 buttons which might be part of the game (4 buttons, 4 bumpers), more if you include the analog stick press. If you limit to mouse and analog side you probably have at most 6 (two bumpers and 4 mouse buttons). Having a keyboard for the left hand gives you access to plenty of keys.
...the oldest maps are up to 8000 years old (but well, they are star maps :D )
I call bullshit. There is no way Hollywood has been around for 8000 years.
Handicapping is placing someone at an intentional disadvantage, and on consoles the exact opposite is happening.
I think it's arguable either way - e.g. Bungie "intentionally" did not support mouse/keyboard on a platform that natively supports it. As for aim assist, I consider it a crutch that is necessary just to make games playable with controllers for the average player.
What you do is use the dual shock to move, but the mouse to aim.
The fingers on my left hand cramp up just thinking about that.
While technically true, the implementation was terrible. Mouse/keyboard didn't work well or consistently across games, was only supported by a couple games, and also had issues with all but the simplest devices. I tried playing FF7: Dirge of Cerberus (FPS) with a mouse and keyboard but the movements were erratic and unstable.
Fast forward to today where modern consoles have real mouse/keyboard support built in, and the game developers still won't support it because it would give an unfair advantage (see Destiny). Anyone buying a device to emulate mouse/keyboard support is considered a cheater by the handicapped controller users.
Mmk I apologize a bit for that post. I think you were actually making the general religious argument but using Islam as the particular religion in your example.
even many moderate muslims who wouldn't dream of stooping to violence themselves would vote for sharia law if it was brought to a vote
Guess what, the gay marriage bans in the US weren't legislated by Muslims. The legislation requiring teaching Creationism in some US states wasn't created by Muslims either. I bet a lot of religious people supported those laws.
Whether or not you're in the US, I frankly call bullshit that you don't have non-muslim people in your country trying to enshrine their own morals in law. Either that stuff gets laughed out of the building (one can only hope), gets voted down later, or you don't think about it because you personally agree with it. The fact that some Muslims might support laws that prop up their religion is completely irrelevant, because it's not a problem specific to Muslims.
Muslims also drink water. The fact that I also drink water does not make me a terrorist.
he also made the leap from Muslim to terrorism
In the first quote you literally equated the word "Muslim" to the word "terrorist", so maybe you are protesting a bit too loudly.
most bars carry only beers from one giant distributor or the other
This is changing up here too, but not in the big franchises or restaurants that are more about standard food fare. Most locally owned pubs sell some, and there are very many craft breweries springing up. Part of the problem is laws around distribution which drives up costs (in Ontario at least), but progress is being made to dismantle the oligopoly.
Someone made the point yesterday that there is a general overuse of commas to replace the word "and". This one is no different.
Ebay Shop Scrapes Thingiverse and Sells Designs In Violation of Creative Commons
This is true in Ottawa, however those rights-of-way are very specific and would not apply at all in this scenario. In Ottawa the law is that you have to yield to a bus attempting to merge into your lane from the right side. This is to allow the bus to pull out from a stop after picking up passengers. It is necessary because buses accelerate slowly and on busier roads they need others to yield to let them merge safely. There is a yield sign clearly affixed to the extreme left side of the bus's rear panel.
I've had similar circumstances though never such a close call yet, mostly because I am familiar with the intersection and know to watch for it. On my daily commute there is an intersection with a right-hand turning lane which becomes available about 100 feet from the intersection. The roadway itself has a wide paved shoulder which is clearly marked. Often traffic backs up from the red light, and people further back who want to turn right will drive down the shoulder to access the turning lane - I've seen people do at least 100 feet on the shoulder, passing other cars like my own already signalling the turn but waiting for proper clearance. In general I don't think it is a bad thing when traffic is very slow and the people doing this go slowly and carefully, because it does get them on their way sooner and out line up going straight. But this is an 80 kph road and the occasional asshole doesn't slow down while doing it.
A country has to be able to make some sacrifices and work together.
This made me laugh. The internal party debates for leadership clearly show your politicians can't work together even when they're on the same team. But if you vote in Trump you're more likely to have other wars to deal with before civil war becomes a problem.
On a related note, what exactly is it that makes these "trained professionals" better at texting while driving than the general public? Do they go through specialized training where they learn techniques of scanning the road while manipulating the phone?
In my readings on the case it was not texting per se, he was actually communicating using his laptop's messaging application with another officer, though it was not duty-related. They are probably actually trained on acceptable use while driving, and acceptable use does allow operation while driving. I would agree with the idea that due to whatever level of training they get, they are at least somewhat less of a risk than your average texter, but that might be cancelled out by frequency of use. Only stats would show if there really is less risk, or any benefit to allowing it. Regardless, in my opinion, he should have been charged since his use of the system was not duty-related.