we'll just accept that you say I am wrong because you say I am wrong.
We?
I didn't say you were wrong, I explained where the holes are in you argument and sought clarification (based on reason rather than emotion). This is how discussions generally work.
That's the extent of your argument so far, so declare yourself the winner, and do whatever you do. If you simply must summarily reject what I write, I could do the same.
You're clearly are incapable of having a conversation without throwing your toys out of the pram whenever you opinion is questioned. Maybe Youtube is more your style...
It's got 4 wheels and 4 doors, the motor/battery config are fairly standard. Most of the changes are simply smaller/less of to skimp on features that add cost, unlike the X which added stupid expensive doors/seat config which were the cause of most of the issues.
One of the biggest, is inverting the production line, which should increase the quality a great deal.
I'm not even sure what you mean by this, I'm sure they aren't starting with a finished car and ending up with raw materials?
VR solves the problem of immersion when it comes to video gaming.
I play a lot of games, I've never found this to be a problem
Not your cup of tea? Ok. Fortunately it's not mandatory to use and neither are you required to even consider it.
Correct, which is why it's not a problem. The issue of not liking VR is not solved by providing more VR gimmicks to convince people to like it more, it is solved by not using it. And that solution already exists for most people.
Never buy version 1.0 of anything. Any engineer can tell you virtually no hardware or software goes out the door without know problems, some of which may be serious. And in the case of a vehicle some problems will only discovered when vehicles come in for repairs or end up in crashes.
The model 3 might prove to be a great car out of the gate, or over time especially as it is refined. The model S certainly did, the X not so much. I'm not sure why anyone want to gamble money on it though.
All the issues with the X were due the stupid doors that should never gotten past the idea stage. The 3 is just a smaller version of the S, so it is already v2 (or actually v9 since the S is already up to v8.0)
I can see how some people may get motion sickness, but I cannot really say I had that experience.
My guess is that this problem needs a solution,
There is a solution, don't buy VR, which is what most people for most of human history choose to do.
What you really should be saying, is what problem is this 'solution' (VR) solving? Because ever since the original VR in the 90's I've never figured out how this could ever work outside novelty use cases.
VR has always been stupid, Facebook are just now learning what most of us already knew.
Actually what I am doing is telling you something you don't want to hear, and it is making you angry.
I'm not angry at all, why you would say such a thing makes me think your ability to reason is extremely flawed.
That's what I do, and it irritates a lot of people.
What do you do, make wild assumptions and get them completely wrong? If that's your party trick I'd maybe look for something else...
If you want to continue the discussion, fine - but I will not say what you want to hear.
You are right, I want to hear a reasoned argument, so far all I'm getting is gibberish.
Is it an extremist position when there are laws against manspreading?
If the definition of 'manspreading' is (and I'm quoting from wikipedia) "a man sitting in public transport with legs wide apart, thereby covering more than one seat", then no. There is nothing extreme about this at all. We have similar rules here for women who do the same thing with their handbags.
So who were the extremists who wrote this law...
There you go again, proceeding on false assumptions. People who take up more than one seat are denying the use of that seat to someone else. I see nothing extreme, nor sexist about that. It is just bad manners, and the bigger the city, the more rules required to keep order.
I'm not sure how you conclude that we "would all be dead by now" though.....considering that despite our ocean border advantage we STILL maintain an Army large enough to deter even a direct invasion by Russia...if they could ever actually reach us.
America might have the best hardware, but strategy wins wars, not just raw manpower. And the US has a long track record of failure in this space.
Not that we'll eve know, but given a Division of US vs a Division or Russian soldiers on the same field, my bet would be on the Russians.
The Europeans instead decided to cut their militaries to the bone and then just *assume* that they could beg the US to bail them out in dark times.
Not sure what you're on about here so you may need to provide some references. European military expenditure is still in the normal range, just not in the crazy range like the US and Russia. This is why NATO is a good thing. 30 countries combined can spend less each on bombs and tanks (and more on schools and hospitals), yet achieve a better net result than each doing their own thing. Donald Trump is about to learn this the hard way.
I would be a fool to say that all women hate men. But here is the problem. Change. Many women change over time.
And Men don't?
Most divorces are initiated be women, and one of the biggest reasons is irreconcilable differences. Which of course could mean she was angry at the color of your new rototiller.
Or you fucked around on her, which a lot of men do. None of which is relevant here.
Because I'm talking about trends, not individuals.
No you aren't, you're talking a handful of extremist opinions, which are about the handful of of extremists at the other end of the spectrum, and tried to pass this off as behaviour from the normal range. And you fail to see the irony in doing the exact same thing in reverse.
Tell me, do you also think all the world's entire 1.6 Billion Muslims are all terrorists that want to kill you?
Myth? You do realise the whole NSA/Snowden spying and torture thing occurred under Republican watch yeah?
Which administration was in charge in 2013? Republican watch?
You know 2013 was only when the information was leaked, not when it happened yeah?
Most of the bad stuff we have now started with Bush jnr, 'war on terror' etc. Sure Obama kept it going, but it started with GWB, which is why the R's earned the reputation they have now.
I guess you are jaded since even the fatties won't fuck you. Fat disgusting guys think the same thing. Its almost as if it has nothing to do with feminism, but in fact is a property of humans, most of which are gross and under estimate their grossness. Do you have a mirror handy?
Haha, this is actually spot on. I'm a bit average and I do ok, but I have mates who are considered 'hot' and these guys have to fight girls off with a stick. Sure it's not quite to the level of gay men fucking like rabbits, but it is an unreasonably regular turnover relative to the rest of us.
it has become pretty clear that women by and large simply do not like men, and a majority of them hate men. From this article...
Most of the women I meet love men. You know just as not all men are rapists, not all women are extreme feminists. Get away from the keyboard, and go out and meet some real people.
If the Europeans can't get their shit together and protect themselves when the balance of security resources is stacked so heavily in their favor..
I think having an aggressive superpower a few hours drive away is less of an advantage that two large oceans on your borders. Americans seem to take that tactical advantage for granted, but if you behaved that same way while geographically located in Europe you would all be dead by now.
Yeah, somehow busts the myth that Republicans are against privacy and for an intrusive law enforcement all in the name of security
Myth? You do realise the whole NSA/Snowden spying and torture thing occurred under Republican watch yeah?
I'm not saying Dems are any better, but let's not get too carried away here...
This guy is closer to communist than socialist.To put the thing in perspective, he is hanging around telling that big tech corporation are evil on Earth and he wants to tax robots.
Since pretty much everything is taxed, why wouldn't robots also be taxed also? This argument isn't a very good one...
Give me one reason why it's better. Not flashier, or newer, or shinier, or more colorful. Just better.
Common functions are easier to find for most users, one of which I like is that for formatting changes I can hover over one and get an instant live preview.
But I'm sure that won't satisfy you. You grew up riding the steam train and there's no way you'll ever figure out these new horseless carriages...
And the Apple Watch outsold the iPhone in their first years.
First year (singular) you mean, when it wasn't available in any market outside AT&T in the USA? After Year 2 when the rest of the world could buy one, iPhone sales shit on everything including the stupid watch.
please tell me what percent of my U.S. federal taxes create a higher standard of living, I'm curious.
All of it. You can choose to live in the jungle and pay no tax, or you can live in a society that has schools, roads, a functioning legal system, and army etc and see which is better. I assume by the fact you haven't chosen to move to the jungle that you prefer what you have now.
I'm also thinking you are an idealist and naive
Of course you do, because when you hear information that questions your beliefs you feel threatened. That is a natural reaction.
You keep telling yourself that and one day even you might believe it...
I've worked for Microsoft and I have a good idea of the ebb and flow there. Trust me, O365 is not the resounding success they had hoped it would be.
Sure, but there's a long way from 'not a golden goose' to 'a stinking pile of poo'. Office (Not just O365 for Consumers) is still a lot closer to the golden goose end of the spectrum.
If it's the poor who are now the most likely to smoke, it's hard to see how they will ever afford the AUD$40 (USD$30) pack of cigarettes.
They won't.
They'll buy black market cigarettes for a fraction of that price.
Well you say that, but having lived in Australia for the last 20 years and knowing tons of smokers and drug users, I've not once seen black market cigarettes. Apparently the Chinese immigrants get into them a bit, but I seen precisely zero among my regular circles.
Let's ban everything we think is immoral and wrong and just plain nasty.
Flying off the handle a bit there. Non-one said to ban everything, only somethings that are known to cause death to the users and even the innocent people around them. Or is being killed by someone you don't know a fair price for freedom in your world?
For what it's worth, the Department of Public Health at Oxford University estimated that burden at £5 billion (in 2009, so let's adjust for inflation and call it £6 billion). Sounds to me like smokers are contributing about twice as much as they're costing, right?
I can't remember the stats, but I had this argument once too. Here in Australia the tax generated was more then twice the cost of all the medical costs. So you're right, Smokers are a net gain for the rest of us.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have a Twitter account so all those fucktards have no voice in my universe. What's your excuse?
we'll just accept that you say I am wrong because you say I am wrong.
We?
I didn't say you were wrong, I explained where the holes are in you argument and sought clarification (based on reason rather than emotion). This is how discussions generally work.
That's the extent of your argument so far, so declare yourself the winner, and do whatever you do. If you simply must summarily reject what I write, I could do the same.
You're clearly are incapable of having a conversation without throwing your toys out of the pram whenever you opinion is questioned. Maybe Youtube is more your style...
3 is NOT a smaller version of S.
It's got 4 wheels and 4 doors, the motor/battery config are fairly standard. Most of the changes are simply smaller/less of to skimp on features that add cost, unlike the X which added stupid expensive doors/seat config which were the cause of most of the issues.
One of the biggest, is inverting the production line, which should increase the quality a great deal.
I'm not even sure what you mean by this, I'm sure they aren't starting with a finished car and ending up with raw materials?
VR solves the problem of immersion when it comes to video gaming.
I play a lot of games, I've never found this to be a problem
Not your cup of tea? Ok. Fortunately it's not mandatory to use and neither are you required to even consider it.
Correct, which is why it's not a problem. The issue of not liking VR is not solved by providing more VR gimmicks to convince people to like it more, it is solved by not using it. And that solution already exists for most people.
Never buy version 1.0 of anything. Any engineer can tell you virtually no hardware or software goes out the door without know problems, some of which may be serious. And in the case of a vehicle some problems will only discovered when vehicles come in for repairs or end up in crashes.
The model 3 might prove to be a great car out of the gate, or over time especially as it is refined. The model S certainly did, the X not so much. I'm not sure why anyone want to gamble money on it though.
All the issues with the X were due the stupid doors that should never gotten past the idea stage. The 3 is just a smaller version of the S, so it is already v2 (or actually v9 since the S is already up to v8.0)
There's also a solution to car accidents, we just have to stop using cars.
Cars solve a real problem, what exactly are you solving with VR?
See how simple this can be?
You see no use for VR. That's ok. Some of us would like the experience though. I hope we're allowed to? Or do we need your permit?
Fill your boots. If you like VR and don't get nauseous using it then there is no problem that needs solving.
I can see how some people may get motion sickness, but I cannot really say I had that experience.
My guess is that this problem needs a solution,
There is a solution, don't buy VR, which is what most people for most of human history choose to do.
What you really should be saying, is what problem is this 'solution' (VR) solving? Because ever since the original VR in the 90's I've never figured out how this could ever work outside novelty use cases.
VR has always been stupid, Facebook are just now learning what most of us already knew.
Actually what I am doing is telling you something you don't want to hear, and it is making you angry.
I'm not angry at all, why you would say such a thing makes me think your ability to reason is extremely flawed.
That's what I do, and it irritates a lot of people.
What do you do, make wild assumptions and get them completely wrong? If that's your party trick I'd maybe look for something else...
If you want to continue the discussion, fine - but I will not say what you want to hear.
You are right, I want to hear a reasoned argument, so far all I'm getting is gibberish.
Is it an extremist position when there are laws against manspreading?
If the definition of 'manspreading' is (and I'm quoting from wikipedia) "a man sitting in public transport with legs wide apart, thereby covering more than one seat", then no. There is nothing extreme about this at all. We have similar rules here for women who do the same thing with their handbags.
So who were the extremists who wrote this law...
There you go again, proceeding on false assumptions. People who take up more than one seat are denying the use of that seat to someone else. I see nothing extreme, nor sexist about that. It is just bad manners, and the bigger the city, the more rules required to keep order.
I'm not sure how you conclude that we "would all be dead by now" though.....considering that despite our ocean border advantage we STILL maintain an Army large enough to deter even a direct invasion by Russia ...if they could ever actually reach us.
America might have the best hardware, but strategy wins wars, not just raw manpower. And the US has a long track record of failure in this space.
Not that we'll eve know, but given a Division of US vs a Division or Russian soldiers on the same field, my bet would be on the Russians.
The Europeans instead decided to cut their militaries to the bone and then just *assume* that they could beg the US to bail them out in dark times.
Not sure what you're on about here so you may need to provide some references. European military expenditure is still in the normal range, just not in the crazy range like the US and Russia. This is why NATO is a good thing. 30 countries combined can spend less each on bombs and tanks (and more on schools and hospitals), yet achieve a better net result than each doing their own thing. Donald Trump is about to learn this the hard way.
I would be a fool to say that all women hate men. But here is the problem. Change. Many women change over time.
And Men don't? Most divorces are initiated be women, and one of the biggest reasons is irreconcilable differences. Which of course could mean she was angry at the color of your new rototiller.
Or you fucked around on her, which a lot of men do. None of which is relevant here.
Because I'm talking about trends, not individuals.
No you aren't, you're talking a handful of extremist opinions, which are about the handful of of extremists at the other end of the spectrum, and tried to pass this off as behaviour from the normal range. And you fail to see the irony in doing the exact same thing in reverse.
Tell me, do you also think all the world's entire 1.6 Billion Muslims are all terrorists that want to kill you?
"Common functions are easier to find for most users..." I guess I'm not "most users",
Well the evidence seems to support that assertion...
Myth? You do realise the whole NSA/Snowden spying and torture thing occurred under Republican watch yeah?
Which administration was in charge in 2013? Republican watch?
You know 2013 was only when the information was leaked, not when it happened yeah?
Most of the bad stuff we have now started with Bush jnr, 'war on terror' etc. Sure Obama kept it going, but it started with GWB, which is why the R's earned the reputation they have now.
I guess you are jaded since even the fatties won't fuck you. Fat disgusting guys think the same thing. Its almost as if it has nothing to do with feminism, but in fact is a property of humans, most of which are gross and under estimate their grossness. Do you have a mirror handy?
Haha, this is actually spot on. I'm a bit average and I do ok, but I have mates who are considered 'hot' and these guys have to fight girls off with a stick. Sure it's not quite to the level of gay men fucking like rabbits, but it is an unreasonably regular turnover relative to the rest of us.
it has become pretty clear that women by and large simply do not like men, and a majority of them hate men. From this article ...
Most of the women I meet love men. You know just as not all men are rapists, not all women are extreme feminists. Get away from the keyboard, and go out and meet some real people.
If the Europeans can't get their shit together and protect themselves when the balance of security resources is stacked so heavily in their favor..
I think having an aggressive superpower a few hours drive away is less of an advantage that two large oceans on your borders. Americans seem to take that tactical advantage for granted, but if you behaved that same way while geographically located in Europe you would all be dead by now.
Your inline approach is obviously confrontational. Might be sincere, too, but I doubt it, so I just scanned your reply before deciding to ignore it.
.
You might want to look up what the word 'ignore' means...
Yeah, somehow busts the myth that Republicans are against privacy and for an intrusive law enforcement all in the name of security
Myth? You do realise the whole NSA/Snowden spying and torture thing occurred under Republican watch yeah?
I'm not saying Dems are any better, but let's not get too carried away here...
This guy is closer to communist than socialist.To put the thing in perspective, he is hanging around telling that big tech corporation are evil on Earth and he wants to tax robots.
Since pretty much everything is taxed, why wouldn't robots also be taxed also? This argument isn't a very good one...
Give me one reason why it's better. Not flashier, or newer, or shinier, or more colorful. Just better.
Common functions are easier to find for most users, one of which I like is that for formatting changes I can hover over one and get an instant live preview.
But I'm sure that won't satisfy you. You grew up riding the steam train and there's no way you'll ever figure out these new horseless carriages...
And the Apple Watch outsold the iPhone in their first years.
First year (singular) you mean, when it wasn't available in any market outside AT&T in the USA? After Year 2 when the rest of the world could buy one, iPhone sales shit on everything including the stupid watch.
please tell me what percent of my U.S. federal taxes create a higher standard of living, I'm curious.
All of it. You can choose to live in the jungle and pay no tax, or you can live in a society that has schools, roads, a functioning legal system, and army etc and see which is better. I assume by the fact you haven't chosen to move to the jungle that you prefer what you have now.
I'm also thinking you are an idealist and naive
Of course you do, because when you hear information that questions your beliefs you feel threatened. That is a natural reaction.
You keep telling yourself that and one day even you might believe it...
I've worked for Microsoft and I have a good idea of the ebb and flow there. Trust me, O365 is not the resounding success they had hoped it would be.
Sure, but there's a long way from 'not a golden goose' to 'a stinking pile of poo'. Office (Not just O365 for Consumers) is still a lot closer to the golden goose end of the spectrum.
They won't.
They'll buy black market cigarettes for a fraction of that price.
Well you say that, but having lived in Australia for the last 20 years and knowing tons of smokers and drug users, I've not once seen black market cigarettes. Apparently the Chinese immigrants get into them a bit, but I seen precisely zero among my regular circles.
Let's ban everything we think is immoral and wrong and just plain nasty.
Flying off the handle a bit there. Non-one said to ban everything, only somethings that are known to cause death to the users and even the innocent people around them. Or is being killed by someone you don't know a fair price for freedom in your world?
For what it's worth, the Department of Public Health at Oxford University estimated that burden at £5 billion (in 2009, so let's adjust for inflation and call it £6 billion). Sounds to me like smokers are contributing about twice as much as they're costing, right?
I can't remember the stats, but I had this argument once too. Here in Australia the tax generated was more then twice the cost of all the medical costs. So you're right, Smokers are a net gain for the rest of us.