The argument Archangel Michael put forth wasn't "laws are useless", it was "we should think about whether a law will actually help the situation before we pass it". I don't know of any reasonable person who would object to that. Laws aren't a cure-all, and we have to examine whether they would make the situation better or worse before doing things.
That's not necessarily true. They could be asking those companies to analyze the data for Niantic's own internal use - trying to understand what demographics they're appealing to, etc.
That's also a good point - generally, you can't make all that many different versions of products, especially when they're not super expensive - so you design around the major demands as much as you can.
Nobody thinks the free market is "all-powerful" or "magic". It could solve their problems, if they're willing to pay more for a phone like that and make that known to companies. But, like everything else, the market is limited to what information people have. Companies usually won't make a product if they don't know that people want it.
That really depends on whether the laws this arrangement allegedly broke applied to Apple, Ireland, or both. If Ireland agreed to certain terms when joining the EU, but this deal with Apple violated those, then it's certainly at least partly Ireland's fault.
What would you say qualifies as a defensive weapon? Because all I can think of are things that are more practical for defense than offense, but could still be used to assault someone.
No. In no state are you legally allowed to shoot someone who is on your land (but not in a building) and not threatening to commit a felony - generally assault, murder, arson, rape, etc. In some states, if they forcibly break into your dwelling, you can use whatever force you think is needed without warning or a duty to retreat. In other states, you have to try to get away unless there's an immediate threat of violence to you or someone else who is not an aggressor.
At any rate, just walking onto your yard is not grounds for shooting someone without warning. If they're also yelling about how they're going to rape/attack/kill you, or burn your house down, then it might be, depending on the state, but if a reasonable person would not feel that they are in immediate danger, you have to tell them to leave first.
It's something actually pretty important in this context - the AR-15 can't do fully automatic fire unless you go through a lot of work with the ATF. The M16, which is what the military uses, can do fully automatic. Anyone who was actually in the military and used a rifle should know the difference. In this case, the AC not knowing the proper terminology and getting facts wrong is important.
No military on the planet uses the AR-15. Some militaries use the related - and more versatile - M-16, this is true. But the AR-15 is not a military weapon. You also do see massacres with handguns; at close range there's really not much difference.
Not being sarcastic here - good for you! I hope you can find something soon. I think most people agree that it's better to rehabilitate criminals and make them into productive members of society. But too few people want to be the ones to take that perceived risk themselves, and the government rarely makes it easier for them to.
They aren't "siphoning" money out. They're sending USD back home. But they never stay in other countries; they're spent on American goods and services, because that's what dollars are good for. It all comes back eventually.
We buy top of the line Dell laptops, but looking through logs, they only last about 22 hours between reboots on average. Windows+laptop=unreliable crap. I know my personal Latitude E6440 only makes it about two hours between reboots running 7. With 10, it crashed nearly every half of an hour so I downgraded.
Seems to me the problem is more likely to be either a) Dell, or b) your (or your company's) setup. I've got a seven year old HP laptop that hasn't crashed in two or three years, and my Lenovo one for work hasn't crashed at all (to be fair, it's under a year old).
What are you doing to your PC laptops that they crash so often? I can't remember the last time one of my PC laptops (personal or work) crashed. Maybe like three years ago?
Libertarians are a pretty diverse bunch, and lots of them don't oppose "licensing in general". Your attempt at lumping all libertarians together is no more accurate than saying that Democrats are all like Chairman Mao, and Republicans are all like Mussolini. Please learn about things before you run your mouth off about them.
No, Krugman says that free trade is better. He doesn't always support specific laws or policies, although sometimes he does, often - in my opinion - because there's Democratic support behind them. Moreover, supporting one "right-wing" idea doesn't make you right-wing, it just means you agree with them sometimes. Krugman is otherwise a pretty stout Keynesian, which - last time I checked - was definitely not a right-wing neoliberal stance.
But that's irrelevant for the main issue we were talking about, which was that the vast majority of economists agree that free trade is a good thing. Even economists who otherwise support socialism, communism, what have you agree that there is empirical evidence for free trade being good. If that makes all of them "right-wing neoliberals" to you, then you're about as far left as Marx.
Except that immigrants can choose where they work and chose to come to their new country. Slaves couldn't choose either of those things. That's really not a good comparison.
Not doing anything against him besides being very obstructive and uncooperative, sure. Obama has certainly expanded the Executive Branch's power, but most Presidents do that. SCOTUS would properly be the ones to limit that power again.
I'd rather be governed by a different set of laws too. Wanting laws to be different is not in and of itself a bad thing, and - even if that poll is accurate, which is questionable (it's really easy to ask questions in such a way to get the answer you want) - that still doesn't imply that they're going to try to force Sharia laws on the non-Muslims.
Re: fences: here and here. It's unlikely to work because, with so much more border with nobody around, it's much easier to destroy or damage the fence and slip through before a response can be mounted, and that's if the crossing is even detected. It might slightly reduce the number of people coming to America illegally, but I very much doubt it's a cost-effective way of doing that. Why exactly are "anchor babies" a problem?
No, it's not always legitimate for governments to tax what they wish to discourage. There's no moral reason to do anything to the remittances. It's a regressive tax that does nothing for America's well-being.
So you're saying that we can just ignore economics because sometimes they get things wrong. Got it. Let's go back to bloodletting to cure cancer too, since doctors - and medicine - also get things wrong.
I don't see how kidnapping people - especially people in foreign countries - is going to help in the slightest. Also, I'm not a pacifist - there is a time and place for war - I just don't think we should kill innocent people. That just creates more terrorists.
There has never been a good, empirical study that shows porn causes harm. Less interest in sex is also not harm.
Porn, when created with the informed consent of all involved, should be protected. Child pornography (featuring actual children) would not, therefore, be protected. Child pornography that is just animations or drawings or whatever would be, even though it's disgusting.
Yes, Clinton or Trump will be the person taking office. Voting for anyone else is not dodging; I'm going to vote my conscience, as should everyone.
Right wing neoliberal economists, who should be sent out back with the trickle down wonks, laughed out of polite conversation for getting everything wrong.
Nope. From the first link I cited:
Experts across the political spectrum – from conservative Gregory Mankiw at Harvard University to liberal Paul Krugman at Princeton – support free trade.
This poll also shows wide support for free trade across ideological borders.
As of this moment, I'm not planning on voting for Trump or Hillary, that is correct.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh look, a strawman!
The argument Archangel Michael put forth wasn't "laws are useless", it was "we should think about whether a law will actually help the situation before we pass it". I don't know of any reasonable person who would object to that. Laws aren't a cure-all, and we have to examine whether they would make the situation better or worse before doing things.
That's not necessarily true. They could be asking those companies to analyze the data for Niantic's own internal use - trying to understand what demographics they're appealing to, etc.
It is providing it to third parties. It is not selling it to third parties, which is what they claimed.
That's also a good point - generally, you can't make all that many different versions of products, especially when they're not super expensive - so you design around the major demands as much as you can.
Nobody thinks the free market is "all-powerful" or "magic". It could solve their problems, if they're willing to pay more for a phone like that and make that known to companies. But, like everything else, the market is limited to what information people have. Companies usually won't make a product if they don't know that people want it.
Because the governments were doing so great at not putting lots of junk up there, right?
That really depends on whether the laws this arrangement allegedly broke applied to Apple, Ireland, or both. If Ireland agreed to certain terms when joining the EU, but this deal with Apple violated those, then it's certainly at least partly Ireland's fault.
What would you say qualifies as a defensive weapon? Because all I can think of are things that are more practical for defense than offense, but could still be used to assault someone.
No. In no state are you legally allowed to shoot someone who is on your land (but not in a building) and not threatening to commit a felony - generally assault, murder, arson, rape, etc. In some states, if they forcibly break into your dwelling, you can use whatever force you think is needed without warning or a duty to retreat. In other states, you have to try to get away unless there's an immediate threat of violence to you or someone else who is not an aggressor.
At any rate, just walking onto your yard is not grounds for shooting someone without warning. If they're also yelling about how they're going to rape/attack/kill you, or burn your house down, then it might be, depending on the state, but if a reasonable person would not feel that they are in immediate danger, you have to tell them to leave first.
It's something actually pretty important in this context - the AR-15 can't do fully automatic fire unless you go through a lot of work with the ATF. The M16, which is what the military uses, can do fully automatic. Anyone who was actually in the military and used a rifle should know the difference. In this case, the AC not knowing the proper terminology and getting facts wrong is important.
No military on the planet uses the AR-15. Some militaries use the related - and more versatile - M-16, this is true. But the AR-15 is not a military weapon. You also do see massacres with handguns; at close range there's really not much difference.
"Assault weapon" is a ridiculous phrase. If you can't assault someone with it, it's not a weapon.
Not being sarcastic here - good for you! I hope you can find something soon. I think most people agree that it's better to rehabilitate criminals and make them into productive members of society. But too few people want to be the ones to take that perceived risk themselves, and the government rarely makes it easier for them to.
They aren't "siphoning" money out. They're sending USD back home. But they never stay in other countries; they're spent on American goods and services, because that's what dollars are good for. It all comes back eventually.
We buy top of the line Dell laptops, but looking through logs, they only last about 22 hours between reboots on average. Windows+laptop=unreliable crap. I know my personal Latitude E6440 only makes it about two hours between reboots running 7. With 10, it crashed nearly every half of an hour so I downgraded.
Seems to me the problem is more likely to be either a) Dell, or b) your (or your company's) setup. I've got a seven year old HP laptop that hasn't crashed in two or three years, and my Lenovo one for work hasn't crashed at all (to be fair, it's under a year old).
What are you doing to your PC laptops that they crash so often? I can't remember the last time one of my PC laptops (personal or work) crashed. Maybe like three years ago?
Libertarians are a pretty diverse bunch, and lots of them don't oppose "licensing in general". Your attempt at lumping all libertarians together is no more accurate than saying that Democrats are all like Chairman Mao, and Republicans are all like Mussolini. Please learn about things before you run your mouth off about them.
No, Krugman says that free trade is better. He doesn't always support specific laws or policies, although sometimes he does, often - in my opinion - because there's Democratic support behind them. Moreover, supporting one "right-wing" idea doesn't make you right-wing, it just means you agree with them sometimes. Krugman is otherwise a pretty stout Keynesian, which - last time I checked - was definitely not a right-wing neoliberal stance.
But that's irrelevant for the main issue we were talking about, which was that the vast majority of economists agree that free trade is a good thing. Even economists who otherwise support socialism, communism, what have you agree that there is empirical evidence for free trade being good. If that makes all of them "right-wing neoliberals" to you, then you're about as far left as Marx.
Except that immigrants can choose where they work and chose to come to their new country. Slaves couldn't choose either of those things. That's really not a good comparison.
Honestly, if Thiel wanted to cause the maximum amount of anger, he'd put Milo in charge of Jezebel, not Kotaku.
Ah, I see, so everyone who disagrees with *your* economic views is a right-wing neoliberal. Got it.
An alternate way of looking at it is that it makes it much less likely that we'll permanently screw something up.
Not doing anything against him besides being very obstructive and uncooperative, sure. Obama has certainly expanded the Executive Branch's power, but most Presidents do that. SCOTUS would properly be the ones to limit that power again.
I'd rather be governed by a different set of laws too. Wanting laws to be different is not in and of itself a bad thing, and - even if that poll is accurate, which is questionable (it's really easy to ask questions in such a way to get the answer you want) - that still doesn't imply that they're going to try to force Sharia laws on the non-Muslims.
Re: fences: here and here. It's unlikely to work because, with so much more border with nobody around, it's much easier to destroy or damage the fence and slip through before a response can be mounted, and that's if the crossing is even detected. It might slightly reduce the number of people coming to America illegally, but I very much doubt it's a cost-effective way of doing that. Why exactly are "anchor babies" a problem?
No, it's not always legitimate for governments to tax what they wish to discourage. There's no moral reason to do anything to the remittances. It's a regressive tax that does nothing for America's well-being.
So you're saying that we can just ignore economics because sometimes they get things wrong. Got it. Let's go back to bloodletting to cure cancer too, since doctors - and medicine - also get things wrong.
I don't see how kidnapping people - especially people in foreign countries - is going to help in the slightest. Also, I'm not a pacifist - there is a time and place for war - I just don't think we should kill innocent people. That just creates more terrorists.
There has never been a good, empirical study that shows porn causes harm. Less interest in sex is also not harm.
Porn, when created with the informed consent of all involved, should be protected. Child pornography (featuring actual children) would not, therefore, be protected. Child pornography that is just animations or drawings or whatever would be, even though it's disgusting.
Yes, Clinton or Trump will be the person taking office. Voting for anyone else is not dodging; I'm going to vote my conscience, as should everyone.
Right wing neoliberal economists, who should be sent out back with the trickle down wonks, laughed out of polite conversation for getting everything wrong.
Nope. From the first link I cited:
Experts across the political spectrum – from conservative Gregory Mankiw at Harvard University to liberal Paul Krugman at Princeton – support free trade.
This poll also shows wide support for free trade across ideological borders.
As of this moment, I'm not planning on voting for Trump or Hillary, that is correct.