Yes, the problem with the sport-hunting argument isn't so much that it's ineffective. It certainly can be effective in the right circumstances. It's a useful tool. The problem is the idea that this is the *only* viable approach, a lot of proponents of sport-hunting environmentalism treat it as though it's the only kind of environmentalism.
Glass recycling is more about preventing broken glass bottles from littering the streets and parks.
This is definitely not true in general, though I'll allow that it might be true in some locations. There was a story about a beer company (Molson?) who was considering changing the shape of its bottles into a shorter keg-style, but ultimately decided against this after calculating mow much it would cost to melt down and re-form all of the existing bottles which were currently in circulation.
Soda is also still sold in glass bottles in many countries. Not because they haven't gotten on board with plastic bottles or cans, which are cheaper to manufacture, but because glass is more cost efficient when you consider that the bottle can be washed and reused. It comes down to culture - is soda something that you drink all the time? In which case you're likely to discard the containers wherever is most convenient. Or is soda something that you drink more occasionally in a social setting? In which case the bottles can be more easily collected.
screeching by environmentalists... [contrasted with]... It was the hunting associations that blocked that one
You know how I can tell you consume too much right-wing media? You talk about "environmentalists" as though they were evil, and hunters as though they were good, as though those were two distinct groups. Your story is about two groups of environmentalists who had a disagreement about how best to care for a certain parcel of land.
It's a weird kind of double-think that allows for this. Been happening a lot lately.
it might reduce some of the other security-theater TSA nonsense
This is a contradiction. If you believe that effective screening could reduce the ineffective stuff, then you don't believe that it's theater. The point of security theater is not to be effective.
If it comes from a plant it is by definition not milk.
Whenever someone makes a "by definition" argument, I open up a dictionary. Those people are usually wrong. There are a lot of new products calling themselves milk, but soy milk and coconut milk have been around for a long time (hundreds of years, if not longer) and are well established by those names. More than long enough to get a spot in the dictionary anyway.
While I was at it, I looked up juice. Soy and coconut would certainly qualify, but the definitions for juice are extremely broad. Cow milk could also be called juice, by that definition.
"Before you say anything, you need to be aware that I am recording this conversation for the purpose of keeping a log of our transaction. I can send a copy afterwards if you'd like."
Yes, I think one party consent laws are shitty. It's not a high barrier to be a decent person here, it's harder to set up a recording device than it is to tell someone that they're being recorded.
I have a Zareason laptop (System76 competitor) which I'm typing on right now. Also a Clevo rebrand, also feels cheap, etc. Same experience as you really. It might be fairer to judge these companies on their desktops, rather than their laptops, since they have many more options for sourcing those. At least insofar as judging their capability or dedication. Every complaint I have about this is really directed at Clevo.
Consequently, I'm hoping for great things from this factory. I'll keep an eye on it, but for now I'm just planning on avoiding another Clevo.
It's a shame that the best edutainment game out there was the Oregon Trail series. Make more games like this!
There are some good programming and design games out there. I really liked Mind Rover, but that's quite old now... Carnage Heart, for the PS 1, was in sort of the same vein. I haven't played anything more recent than that, which is pathetic, but I'm sure they probably exist.
I have thought about this development myself, and the instinct is to blame Facebook and it's ilk for popularizing the notion that people shouldn't use pseudonyms online... But, harassment of women is a particular problem in games and it's relatively recently that this has become a big issue. Some people would claim that it has always been an issue and people are only talking about it now, but my suspicion is that it coincided with voice chat. Once games introduced voice chat, pseudonyms no longer worked.
What is wrong with you people, that you can't even bring yourselves to say things like "Anybody can be harassed and harassment is wrong"?
... Well I'm not a fan of the anti-gamergaters either, but this question is pretty easy to answer: it's deflection. If someone says, "Look, this group in particular is being singled out and harassed." and you respond, "Hm, yes harassment is bad. Before we do anything else, let's all say that harassment is bad." then you are deflecting from their complaint by changing the topic to something which they hadn't really been discussing. The other person was not talking about harassment being bad, there was an implication that we all already agreed on that point, the other person was talking about this particular group being singled out.
It's very similar to the "all lives matter" deflection that some people use against the Black Lives Matter protestors. The point of the phrase "black lives matter" is not the concept that lives should matter or that black people have lives. The phrase assumes that we all agree on those points already and so is talking about something else.
It would also be great if we could understand the people behind this and their motivations.... [attacks on women] with deeply misogynistic motivations.
You seem to have assumed the answer to your own question. You're never going to figure it out that way.
to provide all kinds of city services that benefit ALL its citizenry
This is a sentiment that I can get behind, I have expressed my dislike for discriminatory benefits on many occasions. However, a soup kitchen (for example) is not discriminatory. The fact that you don't need it yourself at this moment, does not mean that it isn't there for you if and when you do need it. Your children may not need an orphanage... yet. "But I don't have any children and never will!" you say? Helping your neighbors' children helps you in the long run, in the form of reduced crime and associated costs, and a stronger economy and higher property values. The same applies to helping your neighbors who are not children.
Here's a tip for you: fire insurance is not a waste of money, even though your house may not currently be on fire.
You... have no idea what you're talking about. The tax was not on working people, it was on businesses. The goal of the projects to be funded by the tax was not to bring in more homeless, it was to reduce homelessness. Even if those projects hadn't worked as intended (a prediction which you are unqualified to make), it's hard to believe that they would have increased Seattle's homeless population, seeing as the city already has one of the highest rates of homelessness in the country.
Given that the tax only applied to companies which make $20M+ per year, and was only $275 per employee, I can't see how it would have pushed any businesses out of the city. If you found out that your electric bill was $1 more than you expected, would you move out of your house?
The real problem is that the FCC is owned by the industry it's supposed to regulate.
This is much more applicable to financial regulators than it is to the FCC. Financial regulators get their funding from financial companies, and are forced to compete between themselves for the business of those financial companies (I did not misstate that, the situation makes no sense).
The FCC is controlled by congress, and congress is currently taking orders from the ISPs. So I suppose that your statement applies indirectly, but congress answers to voters to at least some degree - who controls congress is something which can change much more easily than who controls the financial regulators, and that would change the direction of the FCC.
YouTube does, technically, support RSS feeds, but you have to know the secret handshake in order to get the feed address. Saying that feeds are "supported by default" is a little over-optimistic. Google does everything short of completely banning feeds in order to get you to stop using them and sign up with their tracking service instead.
For the secret handshake, use either:
"https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?channel_id=[your channel ID here, alphanumeric string]"
or
"https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?user=[username here, but the username is not always the display name. Check page source.]"
There's more than one way to break up a company. If Facebook's back-end was separated from the front-end stuff, and the back-end company was either turned into a non-profit trade association or had an open access mandate, then we could have competing front-end companies - all of which would have the same user base.
Of course, this by itself would do nothing to address the privacy problems. At a minimum, personal information controlled by the back-end company would need to well regulated. Really the front end companies should get the same, but it's not quite as important.
They did pretty well with webhosting, they did pretty well with ebook readers, they're the only real rival to Google Play on Android, they're the only real rival to Netflix (unless you count Hulu). Alexa may be selling less than Google Home but its market share is still much greater.
Amazon does a lot of me-too stuff, like Microsoft. It doesn't always work out, but they've had plenty of successes. The trouble is, they also emulate the worst aspects of the companies that they copy - they spy on you just as much as Google does, and they're just as controlling as Apple. So Amazon winds up being worse than either.
I haven't read the article, but the point of the summary is that these people are treating those things as problems, but only problems to themselves with solutions only for themselves. In other words, avoiding these problems rather than reducing or eliminating them. Leaving these problems to impact other people instead, potentially even making them worse in the process.
He obviously meant, "This Holiday Season." Probably ran out of space in the title. The catalog is published in October though, calling it a Christmas catalog is just not accurate. It's a seasonal catalog.
What argument? What are you going on about? I had a definition, that's basically it.
You want a legal definition? You're not happy with the Oxford Dictionary? How about Black's Legal Dictionary? It says the same thing.
I have no idea where you got this idea about a "sexual servant" from the Oxford definition... None. I'm stuck there, can't even dispute what you said if I can't understand it. I also can't argue with the definition that you give, but... this here: “the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.” This is prostitution.
I don't really know what you mean by "sexual servant." A prostitute is basically a sexual servant. Most people are confused because they think sex trafficking is the same thing as sexual slavery, this is the mistake that they make. They're confusing sex trafficking and human trafficking. The legal term that they really want is "severe form of trafficking in persons."
It's only a fallacy if it's wrong. Sex trafficking is trade in sex, however it's unfortunately also sometimes used as shorthand for "human trafficking for the purpose of sex." Hence the public confusion that I mentioned above.
Yes, human trafficking does mean trade in humans. I did say above that trafficking means trade in illegal goods. What is the confusion here? It's also commonly used to describe trade in illegal drugs, i.e.: drug trafficking. Do you have some kind of point, or were you so eager to insult me that you forgot about that part?
Trafficking just means trade in illegal goods. If selling sex is illegal, than prostitution is sex trafficking.
I realize that it's pedantic to bring this up every time someone claims that these laws are trojans, but it's not irrelevant: if they make a law against sex trafficking and you cheer for it, and it turns out that you don't want a law against prostitution... well that's at least partly on you. Yes they're taking advantage of public confusion over the word, so they certainly deserve some of the blame, but at least some of that blame also needs to fall on the people who demand laws without any understanding of what those laws are or what they mean or their consequences.
I'm a $0 tier member myself, so I guess I can't dispute your claim, but what nonsense is this? I have and still think of Netflix as the least-bad streaming option. i.e.: a single fee covers everything, no rentals, no paying extra to be add-free or to gain access to all of the episodes of a show. Netflix does track you, which is bad, but way less than Amazon or the conglomerates that Hulu represents, which is less-bad. And their own programming is consistently critically acclaimed.
So, what's the deal? There's room for improvement of course, but what's so bad about Netflix?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the problem with the sport-hunting argument isn't so much that it's ineffective. It certainly can be effective in the right circumstances. It's a useful tool. The problem is the idea that this is the *only* viable approach, a lot of proponents of sport-hunting environmentalism treat it as though it's the only kind of environmentalism.
Glass recycling is more about preventing broken glass bottles from littering the streets and parks.
This is definitely not true in general, though I'll allow that it might be true in some locations. There was a story about a beer company (Molson?) who was considering changing the shape of its bottles into a shorter keg-style, but ultimately decided against this after calculating mow much it would cost to melt down and re-form all of the existing bottles which were currently in circulation.
Soda is also still sold in glass bottles in many countries. Not because they haven't gotten on board with plastic bottles or cans, which are cheaper to manufacture, but because glass is more cost efficient when you consider that the bottle can be washed and reused. It comes down to culture - is soda something that you drink all the time? In which case you're likely to discard the containers wherever is most convenient. Or is soda something that you drink more occasionally in a social setting? In which case the bottles can be more easily collected.
screeching by environmentalists ... [contrasted with] ... It was the hunting associations that blocked that one
You know how I can tell you consume too much right-wing media? You talk about "environmentalists" as though they were evil, and hunters as though they were good, as though those were two distinct groups. Your story is about two groups of environmentalists who had a disagreement about how best to care for a certain parcel of land.
It's a weird kind of double-think that allows for this. Been happening a lot lately.
it might reduce some of the other security-theater TSA nonsense
This is a contradiction. If you believe that effective screening could reduce the ineffective stuff, then you don't believe that it's theater. The point of security theater is not to be effective.
If it comes from a plant it is by definition not milk.
Whenever someone makes a "by definition" argument, I open up a dictionary. Those people are usually wrong. There are a lot of new products calling themselves milk, but soy milk and coconut milk have been around for a long time (hundreds of years, if not longer) and are well established by those names. More than long enough to get a spot in the dictionary anyway.
While I was at it, I looked up juice. Soy and coconut would certainly qualify, but the definitions for juice are extremely broad. Cow milk could also be called juice, by that definition.
"Before you say anything, you need to be aware that I am recording this conversation for the purpose of keeping a log of our transaction. I can send a copy afterwards if you'd like."
Yes, I think one party consent laws are shitty. It's not a high barrier to be a decent person here, it's harder to set up a recording device than it is to tell someone that they're being recorded.
I have a Zareason laptop (System76 competitor) which I'm typing on right now. Also a Clevo rebrand, also feels cheap, etc. Same experience as you really. It might be fairer to judge these companies on their desktops, rather than their laptops, since they have many more options for sourcing those. At least insofar as judging their capability or dedication. Every complaint I have about this is really directed at Clevo.
Consequently, I'm hoping for great things from this factory. I'll keep an eye on it, but for now I'm just planning on avoiding another Clevo.
Hm. Well that's not more recent, but does seem similar. Thank you.
It's a shame that the best edutainment game out there was the Oregon Trail series. Make more games like this!
There are some good programming and design games out there. I really liked Mind Rover, but that's quite old now... Carnage Heart, for the PS 1, was in sort of the same vein. I haven't played anything more recent than that, which is pathetic, but I'm sure they probably exist.
Can anyone offer suggestions?
I have thought about this development myself, and the instinct is to blame Facebook and it's ilk for popularizing the notion that people shouldn't use pseudonyms online... But, harassment of women is a particular problem in games and it's relatively recently that this has become a big issue. Some people would claim that it has always been an issue and people are only talking about it now, but my suspicion is that it coincided with voice chat. Once games introduced voice chat, pseudonyms no longer worked.
What is wrong with you people, that you can't even bring yourselves to say things like "Anybody can be harassed and harassment is wrong"?
... Well I'm not a fan of the anti-gamergaters either, but this question is pretty easy to answer: it's deflection. If someone says, "Look, this group in particular is being singled out and harassed." and you respond, "Hm, yes harassment is bad. Before we do anything else, let's all say that harassment is bad." then you are deflecting from their complaint by changing the topic to something which they hadn't really been discussing. The other person was not talking about harassment being bad, there was an implication that we all already agreed on that point, the other person was talking about this particular group being singled out.
It's very similar to the "all lives matter" deflection that some people use against the Black Lives Matter protestors. The point of the phrase "black lives matter" is not the concept that lives should matter or that black people have lives. The phrase assumes that we all agree on those points already and so is talking about something else.
It would also be great if we could understand the people behind this and their motivations. ... [attacks on women] with deeply misogynistic motivations.
You seem to have assumed the answer to your own question. You're never going to figure it out that way.
to provide all kinds of city services that benefit ALL its citizenry
This is a sentiment that I can get behind, I have expressed my dislike for discriminatory benefits on many occasions. However, a soup kitchen (for example) is not discriminatory. The fact that you don't need it yourself at this moment, does not mean that it isn't there for you if and when you do need it. Your children may not need an orphanage... yet. "But I don't have any children and never will!" you say? Helping your neighbors' children helps you in the long run, in the form of reduced crime and associated costs, and a stronger economy and higher property values. The same applies to helping your neighbors who are not children.
Here's a tip for you: fire insurance is not a waste of money, even though your house may not currently be on fire.
You... have no idea what you're talking about. The tax was not on working people, it was on businesses. The goal of the projects to be funded by the tax was not to bring in more homeless, it was to reduce homelessness. Even if those projects hadn't worked as intended (a prediction which you are unqualified to make), it's hard to believe that they would have increased Seattle's homeless population, seeing as the city already has one of the highest rates of homelessness in the country.
Given that the tax only applied to companies which make $20M+ per year, and was only $275 per employee, I can't see how it would have pushed any businesses out of the city. If you found out that your electric bill was $1 more than you expected, would you move out of your house?
The real problem is that the FCC is owned by the industry it's supposed to regulate.
This is much more applicable to financial regulators than it is to the FCC. Financial regulators get their funding from financial companies, and are forced to compete between themselves for the business of those financial companies (I did not misstate that, the situation makes no sense).
The FCC is controlled by congress, and congress is currently taking orders from the ISPs. So I suppose that your statement applies indirectly, but congress answers to voters to at least some degree - who controls congress is something which can change much more easily than who controls the financial regulators, and that would change the direction of the FCC.
YouTube does, technically, support RSS feeds, but you have to know the secret handshake in order to get the feed address. Saying that feeds are "supported by default" is a little over-optimistic. Google does everything short of completely banning feeds in order to get you to stop using them and sign up with their tracking service instead.
For the secret handshake, use either:
"https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?channel_id=[your channel ID here, alphanumeric string]"
or
"https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?user=[username here, but the username is not always the display name. Check page source.]"
and copy that address to your RSS reader.
There's more than one way to break up a company. If Facebook's back-end was separated from the front-end stuff, and the back-end company was either turned into a non-profit trade association or had an open access mandate, then we could have competing front-end companies - all of which would have the same user base.
Of course, this by itself would do nothing to address the privacy problems. At a minimum, personal information controlled by the back-end company would need to well regulated. Really the front end companies should get the same, but it's not quite as important.
They did pretty well with webhosting, they did pretty well with ebook readers, they're the only real rival to Google Play on Android, they're the only real rival to Netflix (unless you count Hulu). Alexa may be selling less than Google Home but its market share is still much greater.
Amazon does a lot of me-too stuff, like Microsoft. It doesn't always work out, but they've had plenty of successes. The trouble is, they also emulate the worst aspects of the companies that they copy - they spy on you just as much as Google does, and they're just as controlling as Apple. So Amazon winds up being worse than either.
I haven't read the article, but the point of the summary is that these people are treating those things as problems, but only problems to themselves with solutions only for themselves. In other words, avoiding these problems rather than reducing or eliminating them. Leaving these problems to impact other people instead, potentially even making them worse in the process.
He obviously meant, "This Holiday Season." Probably ran out of space in the title. The catalog is published in October though, calling it a Christmas catalog is just not accurate. It's a seasonal catalog.
Even if the rest of your argument ...
What argument? What are you going on about? I had a definition, that's basically it.
You want a legal definition? You're not happy with the Oxford Dictionary? How about Black's Legal Dictionary? It says the same thing.
I have no idea where you got this idea about a "sexual servant" from the Oxford definition... None. I'm stuck there, can't even dispute what you said if I can't understand it. I also can't argue with the definition that you give, but... this here: “the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.” This is prostitution.
I don't really know what you mean by "sexual servant." A prostitute is basically a sexual servant. Most people are confused because they think sex trafficking is the same thing as sexual slavery, this is the mistake that they make. They're confusing sex trafficking and human trafficking. The legal term that they really want is "severe form of trafficking in persons."
It's only a fallacy if it's wrong. Sex trafficking is trade in sex, however it's unfortunately also sometimes used as shorthand for "human trafficking for the purpose of sex." Hence the public confusion that I mentioned above.
Yes, human trafficking does mean trade in humans. I did say above that trafficking means trade in illegal goods. What is the confusion here? It's also commonly used to describe trade in illegal drugs, i.e.: drug trafficking. Do you have some kind of point, or were you so eager to insult me that you forgot about that part?
Trafficking just means trade in illegal goods. If selling sex is illegal, than prostitution is sex trafficking.
I realize that it's pedantic to bring this up every time someone claims that these laws are trojans, but it's not irrelevant: if they make a law against sex trafficking and you cheer for it, and it turns out that you don't want a law against prostitution... well that's at least partly on you. Yes they're taking advantage of public confusion over the word, so they certainly deserve some of the blame, but at least some of that blame also needs to fall on the people who demand laws without any understanding of what those laws are or what they mean or their consequences.
I'm a $0 tier member myself, so I guess I can't dispute your claim, but what nonsense is this? I have and still think of Netflix as the least-bad streaming option. i.e.: a single fee covers everything, no rentals, no paying extra to be add-free or to gain access to all of the episodes of a show. Netflix does track you, which is bad, but way less than Amazon or the conglomerates that Hulu represents, which is less-bad. And their own programming is consistently critically acclaimed.
So, what's the deal? There's room for improvement of course, but what's so bad about Netflix?