Except people who talk like you generally have nothing to offer but complaints. And when it's not just complaining, it's a complex scheme to make outcomes worse for me.
People have financial challenges. Why is that a story at all?
Because agendas need to be pushed on people (to wield power over others), and in order to push an agenda, you need to propose a fantasy world where people don't have financial challenges.
Shorter version: you should spend your days worrying that someone is making a few cents off your credit card transactions and all you're getting in return is easy transactions and airline miles. Because making money on transactions is bad or wrong or something.
You can try to hack apart your distro and install the options you want, but it's often pretty difficult. If your distro makes terrible changes, your only real option is to switch to another distro, and that can be even more difficult.
What people are doing is showing hostility towards the choices Canonical has made, which do not reflect the wants of the community. Mark is just butthurt that if he wants to remain relevant, he has to do what the community wants, not what he wants. Boo hoo.
Yeah it sucks when you're getting something for free and it's not exactly what you wanted.
... mainstream is often a polished turd which companies or alternatively gifted individuals try to sell you as something which is better and novel, while being in an order of magnitude less usable and having tons of bugs.
More or less anything can be described this way. Sometimes it's more fair, sometimes less.
Comments like yours are well-described by Mark Shuttleworth. You show much hostility to alternate options or choices. WTF business is it of yours whether others choose differently than you?
For example, yeah, Windows sucks. It's also an easy solution to problems. Easy solutions to problems mean fewer problems, which doesn't suck. So people use Windows and get on with their lives where they focus on something that's more important to them than Windows sucking. What's wrong with that? Is it any of your business?
A fact is either true or false. What Politifact is commenting on is whether the opinion, belief, or conclusion drawn from those facts is "mostly false".
Yeah, so in the interest of accuracy and being factual, they should change their name to PoliOpinion and change "mostly false" to "contrary to our opinion".
Or they could just keep trying to trick people into thinking their conclusions are factual. It still seems to work on a lot of credulous people.
It's not ok to be a mocking asshole in the first place. It's ok for serious people making thoughtful points to change their mind. Mocking assholes need to sincerely apologize if they change their mind.
That's the government doing that, because you were gullible enough to give the government power "to protect you from corporations". Surprise! They used it against you instead. Who could have seen that coming?
Utility is almost never the same provider as telecoms. And there are almost always multiple communications providers. Satellite exists. Wireless mobile service exists. Add cable and POTS and that's 3 or 4 available in lots of places. There are more options if you are creative or motivated.
For electric, there's grid, solar, generator. The grid provider is regulated.
This isn't a single offer. Do you pay a single bill? No.
And unless that's your family land you inherited from your ancestors, you chose to live there.
These are services that are offered. You choose. No authority tells you to make any sort of deal with them. Lots of people no longer have a landline but the telephone police never come to the door to arrest them.
Not sure what your point is. Governments act by force, corporations act by making you a nice offer that you agree to because it's better than declining it.
Refuse to pay. If the corporate police come to take you to the corporate holding facility, you have a corporate problem. If the government police come to take you to the government holding facility, you have a government problem.
Otherwise corporations will have PLENTY of authority over your choices.
False. You can say "no" to any offer. The fact that you say "yes" to some of the nicer offers is not "authority". Please consider being truthful, since that's the actual original topic being discussed.
Romney told us Russia was a threat. He was mocked. Now the mockers can't shut up about Russia. And we get to read articles about why it's hard to trust anything anyone says.
Doesn't that directly lead to the conclusion that power should be decentralized? If people are fallible, then fallible people should not be allowed to exert authority over others' choices -- except when there's an absolutely necessary, critical need, along with substantial procedural safeguards.
In short: government should be humble and hands-off in ordinary situations. Because people make mistakes, and they shouldn't be empowered to force those mistakes on others.
"Truth" being what? Russia "hacked the election"? "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your health care plan"? "Children just aren’t going to know what snow is"? Where do we go for this "truth"?
1. Animating junk on web pages was never very useful, so people more-or-less stopped doing it. Flash saved itself by becoming a way to deliver web video. 2. Decoding video with a general purpose CPU is very much inferior to decoding it with dedicated logic. Video standards were designed to enable dedicated logic decoders. CPU-based decoding used far, far too much energy so Flash couldn't compete or even come close.
Flash became mostly useless. Then it became only a way to get your system hacked and added to a botnet. Then it became nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Except people who talk like you generally have nothing to offer but complaints. And when it's not just complaining, it's a complex scheme to make outcomes worse for me.
Is either of the those things "new" or unexpected? If yes, then they might be newsworthy. If no, then no.
And? Society should be optimized only for the sick at the expense of -- and with no regard for -- the healthy?
People have financial challenges. Why is that a story at all?
Because agendas need to be pushed on people (to wield power over others), and in order to push an agenda, you need to propose a fantasy world where people don't have financial challenges.
Shorter version: you should spend your days worrying that someone is making a few cents off your credit card transactions and all you're getting in return is easy transactions and airline miles. Because making money on transactions is bad or wrong or something.
You can try to hack apart your distro and install the options you want, but it's often pretty difficult. If your distro makes terrible changes, your only real option is to switch to another distro, and that can be even more difficult.
What people are doing is showing hostility towards the choices Canonical has made, which do not reflect the wants of the community. Mark is just butthurt that if he wants to remain relevant, he has to do what the community wants, not what he wants. Boo hoo.
Yeah it sucks when you're getting something for free and it's not exactly what you wanted.
Haters going to hate.
Yeah. They should get told to stop it every time. Some will listen and stop. Society will be better (or less bad).
... mainstream is often a polished turd which companies or alternatively gifted individuals try to sell you as something which is better and novel, while being in an order of magnitude less usable and having tons of bugs.
More or less anything can be described this way. Sometimes it's more fair, sometimes less.
Comments like yours are well-described by Mark Shuttleworth. You show much hostility to alternate options or choices. WTF business is it of yours whether others choose differently than you?
For example, yeah, Windows sucks. It's also an easy solution to problems. Easy solutions to problems mean fewer problems, which doesn't suck. So people use Windows and get on with their lives where they focus on something that's more important to them than Windows sucking. What's wrong with that? Is it any of your business?
A fact is either true or false. What Politifact is commenting on is whether the opinion, belief, or conclusion drawn from those facts is "mostly false".
Yeah, so in the interest of accuracy and being factual, they should change their name to PoliOpinion and change "mostly false" to "contrary to our opinion".
Or they could just keep trying to trick people into thinking their conclusions are factual. It still seems to work on a lot of credulous people.
It's not ok to be a mocking asshole in the first place. It's ok for serious people making thoughtful points to change their mind. Mocking assholes need to sincerely apologize if they change their mind.
That's the government doing that, because you were gullible enough to give the government power "to protect you from corporations". Surprise! They used it against you instead. Who could have seen that coming?
Utility is almost never the same provider as telecoms. And there are almost always multiple communications providers. Satellite exists. Wireless mobile service exists. Add cable and POTS and that's 3 or 4 available in lots of places. There are more options if you are creative or motivated.
For electric, there's grid, solar, generator. The grid provider is regulated.
This isn't a single offer. Do you pay a single bill? No.
And unless that's your family land you inherited from your ancestors, you chose to live there.
These are services that are offered. You choose. No authority tells you to make any sort of deal with them. Lots of people no longer have a landline but the telephone police never come to the door to arrest them.
Yeah, that's what happens when you give governments more power. They use it against you.
Not sure what your point is. Governments act by force, corporations act by making you a nice offer that you agree to because it's better than declining it.
There's no single offer like that. Saying yes to some offers isn't saying yes to all offers. Saying no to any offer isn't saying no to all offers.
"Authority" has a specific meaning. If you want to make up new meanings for words, that's not being truthful.
So the mockers were being almost entirely dishonest in 2012. Why should we believe them now? Why should we believe their associates now?
Refuse to pay. If the corporate police come to take you to the corporate holding facility, you have a corporate problem. If the government police come to take you to the government holding facility, you have a government problem.
Otherwise corporations will have PLENTY of authority over your choices.
False. You can say "no" to any offer. The fact that you say "yes" to some of the nicer offers is not "authority". Please consider being truthful, since that's the actual original topic being discussed.
Except any relationship you have to a corporation is 100% voluntary. So corporations have no "authority" over your choices.
Romney told us Russia was a threat. He was mocked. Now the mockers can't shut up about Russia. And we get to read articles about why it's hard to trust anything anyone says.
Doesn't that directly lead to the conclusion that power should be decentralized? If people are fallible, then fallible people should not be allowed to exert authority over others' choices -- except when there's an absolutely necessary, critical need, along with substantial procedural safeguards.
In short: government should be humble and hands-off in ordinary situations. Because people make mistakes, and they shouldn't be empowered to force those mistakes on others.
Nope. And your attitude is why no one believes anything any more. Stop telling people to swallow your team's lies over the other team's lies.
"Truth" being what? Russia "hacked the election"? "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your health care plan"? "Children just aren’t going to know what snow is"? Where do we go for this "truth"?
People like you get to make choices. The poor (who are not people like you) don't choose. They "are red-lined", "raised", and end up knocked up.
What happened to Flash:
1. Animating junk on web pages was never very useful, so people more-or-less stopped doing it. Flash saved itself by becoming a way to deliver web video.
2. Decoding video with a general purpose CPU is very much inferior to decoding it with dedicated logic. Video standards were designed to enable dedicated logic decoders. CPU-based decoding used far, far too much energy so Flash couldn't compete or even come close.
Flash became mostly useless. Then it became only a way to get your system hacked and added to a botnet. Then it became nothing.