What if the truth is that headphones are of value because of the use that you get out of them rather than as something you own for 75 years and pass down to your descendants as a legacy?
What if you had headphones that didn't use a battery but instead plugged directly into a hypothetical Jack on a source of sound?
- The wires would get tangled every day. Tell the person calling you to wait a minute while you untangle the headphone cords. Then you can talk to them. - The wires would pull on your head when you exercise - You would accidentally catch the wire with your arm or something else and pull them out of your ears once in a while - If your phone is on the table, you'll accidentally pull it off onto the floor once in a while. Maybe you break the phone screen. - Your phone could never be farther away from you than 2 meters when using them - The headphone jack would get plugged up with pocket lint - The wires would eventually fray and you would need to buy new ones
Besides that, creating a product like a phone involves a series of design tradeoffs. What do you want to give up for your headphone jack? Battery life? Water resistance? Cost? Size? Features?
Why give up anything to preserve something technologically backward? (Because internet trolls who always complain about everything will complain?)
Not sure how much it matters why anti-capitalist counties are inevitably doomed to experience such hardship. The point is, they do.
Let's say it's because they are powerless against magical US sanctions. Then US sanctions are all-powerful and any anti-capitalist country is doomed. Anti-capitalism is therefore a prescription for widespread hunger and deprivation. Or it might be something else. Either way, anti-capitalism leads to hunger and deprivation.
Maybe some places with ideal weather will get flying taxis for a while, until people get tired of the noise and one or two spectacular crashes remind people why aviation isn't like driving a car.
They are both government stepping in to dictate terms to people, so that the manufacturer loses and independent shops win.
- Right to repair: Small repair shops want repair business, use government to force companies to help facilitate independent repairs. Good? - Auto dealers: Small repair shops want repair business, use government to force Tesla to use independent repairs. Bad?
Very similar. Personally, I would prefer governments didn't bully anyone unless it's absolutely necessary. Independent repair shops want to do repairs doesn't justify forcing manufacturers to help out. Independent repair shops want to repair Teslas doesn't justify enforcement against Tesla. By the same token, manufacturer wants to restrict repairs doesn't justify government intervention to help the manufacturer either.
Do Slashdot people believe in the right to repair? Or should Tesla get to do all repairs on Teslas?
Should the government intervene in these transactions? When? Everywhere but Texas? As long as car dealers lose? As long as Tesla can do whatever they want? For people you like but not for people you don't?
Let us know. So far, the principle seems to be that the internet outrage factory will complain about anything, no matter what. Complaining seems to happen for the sake of complaining. And governments should switch from tight regulation to hands-off specifically to benefit a very special cohort that can harness the outrage message for their own personal benefit (but it's wrong, wrong, wrong, when car dealers do the same thing).
Those modern farming techniques don't seem to be helping Venezuelans much these days.
do a bit more research on those statistics about capitalism lifting people out of poverty... Spend some time on google and YouTube...
I will just ask my Chinese friends if things were better in China before Deng Xiaoping's market liberalization or after. What do you think they will say?
Capitalism has been failing for hundreds of years. Every decade of that failure, fewer and fewer people go hungry — so few now that new metrics like "food anxiety " (i.e. having to consider you might miss a meal) have been created to replace statistics that involve actual hunger.
Where do people genuinely go hungry? Venezuela. North Korea. Some places in Africa, but less and less there. It's amazing that the failures of capitalism seem to always be borne by people where capitalism is practiced least.
We need multiple stories per day about what someone predicts might happen 50 years from now. We will call it "news", even though they are just predictions of the distant future and, rather than being new, they are all more-or-less the same.
2. What are you talking about, all of those things are not only well-reported, they're well-reported AND well-whined about by Republicans that they're not well-reported.
We mentioned it once a few years ago. What more do you want? Now on to hour 7 of our round-the-clock Stormy Daniels coverage.
It would be better if climate change didn't cause consistent weather and changing weather, drought and rain, heat and cold, more hurricanes and also fewer, and everything else.
The only pattern is that belief is mandatory. The specifics of what we must believe are various and depend on political needs.
I say why the hell not, plenty of old people vote like children anyway.
People who never did anything for anyone want to decide things. If you want every institution in society to be even less legitimate, that's how you achieve that.
When there's a crisis and you need people to come together to achieve a common goal, they won't. Better hope nothing ever goes wrong.
I've been told wet weather is a sign of climate change. Two years ago, drought was a sign of climate change. It's an all powerful phenomenon that explains everything.
Slashdot Mirror
Should Fox "News" or InfoWars be considered a terrorist recruiting sites?
Nope. Making enemies lists and trying to find excuses to censor web sites is bad. The Washington Post and Vox Media should know better.
Should the Washington Post be considered a terrorist recruiting site?
...until the truth dawns?
What if the truth is that headphones are of value because of the use that you get out of them rather than as something you own for 75 years and pass down to your descendants as a legacy?
What if you had headphones that didn't use a battery but instead plugged directly into a hypothetical Jack on a source of sound?
- The wires would get tangled every day. Tell the person calling you to wait a minute while you untangle the headphone cords. Then you can talk to them.
- The wires would pull on your head when you exercise
- You would accidentally catch the wire with your arm or something else and pull them out of your ears once in a while
- If your phone is on the table, you'll accidentally pull it off onto the floor once in a while. Maybe you break the phone screen.
- Your phone could never be farther away from you than 2 meters when using them
- The headphone jack would get plugged up with pocket lint
- The wires would eventually fray and you would need to buy new ones
Besides that, creating a product like a phone involves a series of design tradeoffs. What do you want to give up for your headphone jack? Battery life? Water resistance? Cost? Size? Features?
Why give up anything to preserve something technologically backward? (Because internet trolls who always complain about everything will complain?)
"Teach Apple a lesson"? Is that what life is about for you people? Sad.
Not sure how much it matters why anti-capitalist counties are inevitably doomed to experience such hardship. The point is, they do.
Let's say it's because they are powerless against magical US sanctions. Then US sanctions are all-powerful and any anti-capitalist country is doomed. Anti-capitalism is therefore a prescription for widespread hunger and deprivation. Or it might be something else. Either way, anti-capitalism leads to hunger and deprivation.
If they had that feature, you could turn it on and off for times you were expecting a call.
I don't want it to even alert me unless the person is in my contacts list.
Flying taxis crash. Same for wind, snow.
Maybe some places with ideal weather will get flying taxis for a while, until people get tired of the noise and one or two spectacular crashes remind people why aviation isn't like driving a car.
They are both government stepping in to dictate terms to people, so that the manufacturer loses and independent shops win.
- Right to repair: Small repair shops want repair business, use government to force companies to help facilitate independent repairs. Good?
- Auto dealers: Small repair shops want repair business, use government to force Tesla to use independent repairs. Bad?
Very similar. Personally, I would prefer governments didn't bully anyone unless it's absolutely necessary. Independent repair shops want to do repairs doesn't justify forcing manufacturers to help out. Independent repair shops want to repair Teslas doesn't justify enforcement against Tesla. By the same token, manufacturer wants to restrict repairs doesn't justify government intervention to help the manufacturer either.
Do Slashdot people believe in the right to repair? Or should Tesla get to do all repairs on Teslas?
Should the government intervene in these transactions? When? Everywhere but Texas? As long as car dealers lose? As long as Tesla can do whatever they want? For people you like but not for people you don't?
Let us know. So far, the principle seems to be that the internet outrage factory will complain about anything, no matter what. Complaining seems to happen for the sake of complaining. And governments should switch from tight regulation to hands-off specifically to benefit a very special cohort that can harness the outrage message for their own personal benefit (but it's wrong, wrong, wrong, when car dealers do the same thing).
the modern farming techniques
Those modern farming techniques don't seem to be helping Venezuelans much these days.
do a bit more research on those statistics about capitalism lifting people out of poverty ... Spend some time on google and YouTube...
I will just ask my Chinese friends if things were better in China before Deng Xiaoping's market liberalization or after. What do you think they will say?
Capitalism is failing
Capitalism has been failing for hundreds of years. Every decade of that failure, fewer and fewer people go hungry — so few now that new metrics like "food anxiety " (i.e. having to consider you might miss a meal) have been created to replace statistics that involve actual hunger.
Where do people genuinely go hungry? Venezuela. North Korea. Some places in Africa, but less and less there. It's amazing that the failures of capitalism seem to always be borne by people where capitalism is practiced least.
It's tax free.
We need multiple stories per day about what someone predicts might happen 50 years from now. We will call it "news", even though they are just predictions of the distant future and, rather than being new, they are all more-or-less the same.
Not as special as climate change. Climate change causes everything.
2. What are you talking about, all of those things are not only well-reported, they're well-reported AND well-whined about by Republicans that they're not well-reported.
We mentioned it once a few years ago. What more do you want? Now on to hour 7 of our round-the-clock Stormy Daniels coverage.
Additionally, multi-year droughts are not uncommon for California.
Tell the climate alarmists that. They were the ones saying you caused it by driving your car.
It would be better if climate change didn't cause consistent weather and changing weather, drought and rain, heat and cold, more hurricanes and also fewer, and everything else.
The only pattern is that belief is mandatory. The specifics of what we must believe are various and depend on political needs.
Drought is a consistent weather pattern — consistent lack of rain, not a changing one.
Speed increases when going down a hill are a sign of bad break adjustment.
Understood. Climate change causes any/every noteworthy change in weather. It's really amazing that way.
I say why the hell not, plenty of old people vote like children anyway.
People who never did anything for anyone want to decide things. If you want every institution in society to be even less legitimate, that's how you achieve that.
When there's a crisis and you need people to come together to achieve a common goal, they won't. Better hope nothing ever goes wrong.
I've been told wet weather is a sign of climate change. Two years ago, drought was a sign of climate change. It's an all powerful phenomenon that explains everything.
Scientists don't pretend to know the future.
Which children talked to which scientists?
We don't get to talk to scientists. We get edited videos and media reports that turn everything into a story.