Then don't date a trans person. I personally don't find transsexuals attractive. I'm also not keen on cigarette smoke, and I think squid is pretty damn disgusting.
But if some other human on this planet wants to smoke a cigarette while eating squid, and getting their fuck on with a transsexual - it doesn't affect me, so I don't have a problem with it.
and since everyone on the internet seems to take things as a threat these days, "worry about your own life" means "concern yourself with issues that relate to your own personal well-being, and don't worry about genitals that aren't attached to yourself."
I love how the LGBT lobby still claims to be a ragtag persecuted victim scrambling in fear
The gun lobby has a fucking constitutional fucking amendment protecting their fucking rights and they still won't shut the fuck up after 226 fucking years.
Some men like men, and some women like women. Worry about your own life.
How is this any different than if someone thought they were a cat or dog?
Is your position so weak that you have to resort to flawed logic to defend it, or are you just too embarrassed to admit you just don't like trans people?
Your freedom is not diminished in any way whatsoever by allowing a man to live as a woman or vise versa. It is not the responsibility of the lawmakers to keep people in society from making you feel uncomfortable. Cry a river, build a bridge, and get the fuck over it.
I can't believe my employer forces me to believe that a man in drag is a woman if he identifies as a woman
If that's truly the worst aspect of your job, count your blessings. Some people are expected to do actual work at their jobs, and don't have time to worry about what's between their coworkers' legs.
a $500,000 angel investment in the social network Facebook for 10.2% of the company and joined Facebook's board.
They say your first million in business is the hardest, and that got Facebook halfway there. It may seem impressive that half a million would be enough to launch a successful competitor against an established business, but the reality is few investors are willing to risk that kind of capital and most people don't have that kind of money to fund the venture themselves. The median American household has only $11,700 in savings. Facebook got lucky twice - first that they were able to secure venture capital, and second that they were able to gain marketshare and topple their competitor.
The Commie term has nothing to do with newcomers competing with the incumbents.
It's the sense that monopolies, and the oligarchs that run them, have rigged the system in their favor. They hired well-paid lobbyists to influence politicians. They won Supreme Court cases that give corporations the same rights as people. This allows them to spend untold millions on political ads that benefit them. Many feel that capitalism's winners may even favor inequality. They have fewer competitive threats. They "rig the system" by creating barriers to entry.
It is entirely possible to acknowledge a situation exists (in this case, late capitalism), without agreeing that communistic measures are the correct course of action to remedy it. History has already taught (most of us) that communism doesn't work.
YouTube is a monopoly in it's market, just as Windows was a monopoly at Apple's nadir, when the lawsuits over bundling IE happened.
Microsoft was abusing their position of dominance in the desktop OS market to force shady licensing deals on OEMs, and it was their standard operating procedure to stifle competition of third party application developers whenever Microsoft had a first-party alternative.
YouTube isn't doing anything similar. Not being able to secure the funding to launch and promote a competing video sharing platform isn't YouTube's fault, no more than it's Walmart's fault if you can't afford to launch your own "big box" retail giant - that's just capitalism.
If you agree in principle that a business has the right to refuse service, the justification for the refusal should be irrelevant. It could be financial, political, or religious - it shouldn't matter, so long as they're not running afoul of existing antitrust/anti-discrimination laws.
"I don't like them because they're successful" is not a valid reason to split up a company.
It's a perfect example of why the right-wingers don't trust the left-wingers with socialism. Making companies pay their workers a fair wage so they're not sucking off the government teat is a good idea. Breaking up successful companies because you're unhappy with the present distribution of wealth - that's taking socialism too damn far.
The point you're missing is that the telcos and oil companies control critical infrastructure. Google, Facebook, and Twitter do not. Heck, I even hear there's this company out in California that's building smartphones without Google's operating system - imagine that!
What you describe is the same situation for anyone starting a competitor to any major corporation. Unless you're sitting on a big fat pile of start up capital, tough luck. This is commonly referred to as "late capitalism".
YouTube is effectively a monopoly, and got that way by being run at a loss for years, subsidized by Googles monopoly on search.
Taking a loss to undercut the competition is anti-competitive behavior - not a monopoly. A monopoly means that you're the single provider of a specific good or service. People share video files P2P just fine without YouTube, just don't be surprised that it's mostly pirated Hollywood movies. YouTube also has plenty of competition in the adult market, since they don't even allow that sort of content.
We have seen posters adamantly supporting attacks against free speech on Gab by PayPal, etc.
Because advocating government intervention in the freedom of companies to decide who they choose to do business with, is the antithesis of conservatism.
If you can simultaneously believe that insurance companies have the right not to do business with customers with preexisting medical conditions, but PayPal doesn't have the right to tell a controversial nationalist social media site to get lost, that's known as cognitive dissonance. Both sides of the political spectrum have gravitated towards pushing agendas where the ends justifies a hypocritical means, rather than focusing on a consistent ideology.
China knows Trump will be out by 2024 at the latest. Perhaps as soon as 2020, if everything at Walmart ends up with jacked up prices. Trump's support base aren't exactly the kind of people who enjoy spending more money for things (otherwise they wouldn't be so afraid of the socialism boogeyman).
We don't actually have a conservative party anymore. We have two crony capitalist parties with opposing views on a few social issues, to keep the masses from realizing they're really just fangirling over which set of rich people get richer.
The stupidity of the notch is having the default behavior be allowing apps/photos/video playback to spill over into the obscured portion of the display. It would've been absolutely fine if kept as a reserved area for status indicators and system notifications.
Apple's implementation is even worse. There is no option to hide the notch system-wide, and it pretty much ruins the experience of looking at photos (videos, however, can be watched in a notchless mode).
I have one choice of wired broadband provider in my central FL neighborhood - Spectrum. It's overpriced, slow, has frequent outages, and they constantly send me junk mail for their overpriced pay TV services (which I have no interest in ever subscribing). I'd gladly switch to government-run broadband if it was a better value for my hard earned, rapidly inflating dollar.
The big telcos don't want their monopoly threatened, so they're spreading FUD. Hell, where I live it's all Republican-controlled anyway - they're certainly not going to ban anyone from ranting endlessly online about how much they love their guns and Trump.
The planet will be just fine. Unless we manage to nuke ourselves out of existence during wars for resources, humanity will survive too. What it really comes down to is whether we should be leaving future generations with a shittier planet to live on.
I've never been interested in BitCoin in any practical way, but stories like this make me want to mine it - if it pisses off hipsters, it's obviously worth doing.
Modify the Bitcoin source to make it extra inefficient and create a fork called "RollinCoalCoin". I'm sure the IPO will be a huge hit with the red hat wearing crowd (and I don't mean the Linux distro).
Or plug in a few space heaters and buy Bitcoin on the dips from an exchange. Costs roughly the same and you don't have to worry about the mining hardware going obsolete in a month.
The display on a smartphone is the primary mode of interaction with the device. If it's distorting/obscuring/cropping part of the content being displayed, then it's failing at its one job.
As for having to "carry around a bunch of extra crap", if the phone had a removable battery you'd still have to carry the spare. You can leave the Bluetooth adapter or wired dongle attached to the headphones you intend to use. I'll give you that the USB OTG drive is truly an extra item to carry, but most of them are designed to be added to a key ring - something you're likely carrying anyway. Or just don't cheap out - buy a phone with adequate storage to begin with.
At first I thought to myself, "Are they insane? $500 isn't some bargain."
Have you seen the prices of washing machines lately? Gone grocery shopping? Smartphones haven't become more expensive - it's rapid inflation of the dollar.
Easily remedied by digging through the impulse bins at Walmart. They sell Bluetooth adapters, portable battery packs, and OTG flash drives.
What really pisses me off about most modern flagship smartphones is the ugly ass notches, rounded display corners (retro CRT-style bullshit), and an obsession with gargantuan screens which are impossible to use one-handed (because to hell with ergonomics). Even Apple has joined in on this design idiocy.
Slashdot Mirror
Transgender is a lie.
Then don't date a trans person. I personally don't find transsexuals attractive. I'm also not keen on cigarette smoke, and I think squid is pretty damn disgusting.
But if some other human on this planet wants to smoke a cigarette while eating squid, and getting their fuck on with a transsexual - it doesn't affect me, so I don't have a problem with it.
and since everyone on the internet seems to take things as a threat these days, "worry about your own life" means "concern yourself with issues that relate to your own personal well-being, and don't worry about genitals that aren't attached to yourself."
I love how the LGBT lobby still claims to be a ragtag persecuted victim scrambling in fear
The gun lobby has a fucking constitutional fucking amendment protecting their fucking rights and they still won't shut the fuck up after 226 fucking years.
Some men like men, and some women like women. Worry about your own life.
The scary thing is, what you wrote as sarcasm reads like a playbook for the current administration.
How is this any different than if someone thought they were a cat or dog?
Is your position so weak that you have to resort to flawed logic to defend it, or are you just too embarrassed to admit you just don't like trans people?
Your freedom is not diminished in any way whatsoever by allowing a man to live as a woman or vise versa. It is not the responsibility of the lawmakers to keep people in society from making you feel uncomfortable. Cry a river, build a bridge, and get the fuck over it.
I can't believe my employer forces me to believe that a man in drag is a woman if he identifies as a woman
If that's truly the worst aspect of your job, count your blessings. Some people are expected to do actual work at their jobs, and don't have time to worry about what's between their coworkers' legs.
a $500,000 angel investment in the social network Facebook for 10.2% of the company and joined Facebook's board.
They say your first million in business is the hardest, and that got Facebook halfway there. It may seem impressive that half a million would be enough to launch a successful competitor against an established business, but the reality is few investors are willing to risk that kind of capital and most people don't have that kind of money to fund the venture themselves. The median American household has only $11,700 in savings. Facebook got lucky twice - first that they were able to secure venture capital, and second that they were able to gain marketshare and topple their competitor.
The Commie term has nothing to do with newcomers competing with the incumbents.
This quote explains it better than I could:
It's the sense that monopolies, and the oligarchs that run them, have rigged the system in their favor. They hired well-paid lobbyists to influence politicians. They won Supreme Court cases that give corporations the same rights as people. This allows them to spend untold millions on political ads that benefit them. Many feel that capitalism's winners may even favor inequality. They have fewer competitive threats. They "rig the system" by creating barriers to entry.
It is entirely possible to acknowledge a situation exists (in this case, late capitalism), without agreeing that communistic measures are the correct course of action to remedy it. History has already taught (most of us) that communism doesn't work.
YouTube is a monopoly in it's market, just as Windows was a monopoly at Apple's nadir, when the lawsuits over bundling IE happened.
Microsoft was abusing their position of dominance in the desktop OS market to force shady licensing deals on OEMs, and it was their standard operating procedure to stifle competition of third party application developers whenever Microsoft had a first-party alternative.
YouTube isn't doing anything similar. Not being able to secure the funding to launch and promote a competing video sharing platform isn't YouTube's fault, no more than it's Walmart's fault if you can't afford to launch your own "big box" retail giant - that's just capitalism.
If you agree in principle that a business has the right to refuse service, the justification for the refusal should be irrelevant. It could be financial, political, or religious - it shouldn't matter, so long as they're not running afoul of existing antitrust/anti-discrimination laws.
"I don't like them because they're successful" is not a valid reason to split up a company.
It's a perfect example of why the right-wingers don't trust the left-wingers with socialism. Making companies pay their workers a fair wage so they're not sucking off the government teat is a good idea. Breaking up successful companies because you're unhappy with the present distribution of wealth - that's taking socialism too damn far.
The point you're missing is that the telcos and oil companies control critical infrastructure. Google, Facebook, and Twitter do not. Heck, I even hear there's this company out in California that's building smartphones without Google's operating system - imagine that!
What you describe is the same situation for anyone starting a competitor to any major corporation. Unless you're sitting on a big fat pile of start up capital, tough luck. This is commonly referred to as "late capitalism".
YouTube is effectively a monopoly, and got that way by being run at a loss for years, subsidized by Googles monopoly on search.
Taking a loss to undercut the competition is anti-competitive behavior - not a monopoly. A monopoly means that you're the single provider of a specific good or service. People share video files P2P just fine without YouTube, just don't be surprised that it's mostly pirated Hollywood movies. YouTube also has plenty of competition in the adult market, since they don't even allow that sort of content.
We have seen posters adamantly supporting attacks against free speech on Gab by PayPal, etc.
Because advocating government intervention in the freedom of companies to decide who they choose to do business with, is the antithesis of conservatism.
If you can simultaneously believe that insurance companies have the right not to do business with customers with preexisting medical conditions, but PayPal doesn't have the right to tell a controversial nationalist social media site to get lost, that's known as cognitive dissonance. Both sides of the political spectrum have gravitated towards pushing agendas where the ends justifies a hypocritical means, rather than focusing on a consistent ideology.
So will China
China knows Trump will be out by 2024 at the latest. Perhaps as soon as 2020, if everything at Walmart ends up with jacked up prices. Trump's support base aren't exactly the kind of people who enjoy spending more money for things (otherwise they wouldn't be so afraid of the socialism boogeyman).
We don't actually have a conservative party anymore. We have two crony capitalist parties with opposing views on a few social issues, to keep the masses from realizing they're really just fangirling over which set of rich people get richer.
The notch is stupid.
The stupidity of the notch is having the default behavior be allowing apps/photos/video playback to spill over into the obscured portion of the display. It would've been absolutely fine if kept as a reserved area for status indicators and system notifications.
Granted, there is a developer option to hide the notch, but it completely negates the purpose of the extra display area.
Apple's implementation is even worse. There is no option to hide the notch system-wide, and it pretty much ruins the experience of looking at photos (videos, however, can be watched in a notchless mode).
Is that the intelligence level they expect to deal with?
Yep. It gets eaten up like candy by the same people who believe if a Democrat gets into office, the #2nd amendment will magically disappear.
I have one choice of wired broadband provider in my central FL neighborhood - Spectrum. It's overpriced, slow, has frequent outages, and they constantly send me junk mail for their overpriced pay TV services (which I have no interest in ever subscribing). I'd gladly switch to government-run broadband if it was a better value for my hard earned, rapidly inflating dollar.
The big telcos don't want their monopoly threatened, so they're spreading FUD. Hell, where I live it's all Republican-controlled anyway - they're certainly not going to ban anyone from ranting endlessly online about how much they love their guns and Trump.
The planet is fubarred already...
The planet will be just fine. Unless we manage to nuke ourselves out of existence during wars for resources, humanity will survive too. What it really comes down to is whether we should be leaving future generations with a shittier planet to live on.
I've never been interested in BitCoin in any practical way, but stories like this make me want to mine it - if it pisses off hipsters, it's obviously worth doing.
Modify the Bitcoin source to make it extra inefficient and create a fork called "RollinCoalCoin". I'm sure the IPO will be a huge hit with the red hat wearing crowd (and I don't mean the Linux distro).
Or plug in a few space heaters and buy Bitcoin on the dips from an exchange. Costs roughly the same and you don't have to worry about the mining hardware going obsolete in a month.
I'll take function over form any day.
I hate responding to A.C.s, but this warrants it.
The display on a smartphone is the primary mode of interaction with the device. If it's distorting/obscuring/cropping part of the content being displayed, then it's failing at its one job.
As for having to "carry around a bunch of extra crap", if the phone had a removable battery you'd still have to carry the spare. You can leave the Bluetooth adapter or wired dongle attached to the headphones you intend to use. I'll give you that the USB OTG drive is truly an extra item to carry, but most of them are designed to be added to a key ring - something you're likely carrying anyway. Or just don't cheap out - buy a phone with adequate storage to begin with.
With all the crap it sends back to Google, Chrome almost qualifies as malware.
At first I thought to myself, "Are they insane? $500 isn't some bargain."
Have you seen the prices of washing machines lately? Gone grocery shopping? Smartphones haven't become more expensive - it's rapid inflation of the dollar.
headphone/storage/battery complaints
Easily remedied by digging through the impulse bins at Walmart. They sell Bluetooth adapters, portable battery packs, and OTG flash drives.
What really pisses me off about most modern flagship smartphones is the ugly ass notches, rounded display corners (retro CRT-style bullshit), and an obsession with gargantuan screens which are impossible to use one-handed (because to hell with ergonomics). Even Apple has joined in on this design idiocy.