The entire point of a principle is that it's something which is so important, you adhere to it even if it hurts you. So I don't think what you said can suffice as an excuse.
I have yet to see a nation or government take the official stance that Occupy are terrorists....
You do NOT have the right to squat in public spaces until the world does things your way, or we'd still have grey-haired hippies camped out all across the nation demanding that you "free the weed."
You're right. They haven't been labeled as terrorists. Instead they've been labeled as lazy, ignorant fools who should just go get jobs.
Fragmentation affects developers. It means they either have to maintain many different versions of their software, put work into making the app auto-configure for many different devices and test it on all of those devices, program for the lowest common denominator, or make apps that don't work on a proportion of phones.
You're either not a developer or not a good one. I've "dealt" with fragmentation in Android applications, and it takes all of half a day to research how to handle it effectively and 15 minutes to implement -- unless you have a really shitty spaghetti codebase.
Also, most apps don't use the kinds of features that would be affected by fragmentation anyway, so the point is beyond moot.
Force me to do my charity work through increased government taxes?
That's quite a stretch.
Now this guy wants to force me to buy solar panels?
You're already required to meet a *ton* of standards when building shit. I guess you don't feel that you should be forced to have running water or meet insulation efficiency standards either.
because they are lazy and choose not to contribute to society
Yeah, let's just take them out back and kill them. Anyone who receives any assistance whatsoever is obviously just a worthless piece of shit. You keep your guns loaded anyway, right? Might as well get some use out of them.
What if I don't want my tax dollars going to politicians and wanna-be politicians?
Ok, so instead you'll just get to pay higher rates on everything you buy because the corporations that sell them to you have to pay for campaign contributions instead. That way you can remain blissfully ignorant of how your money actually gets into the political process while campaign costs absolutely skyrocket each year.
What, you think they're making donations with their own money? How quaint. I'll bet you think that their donations to the Red Cross or breast cancer awareness somehow affect their bottom lines, too.
You're talking out your ass. I don't know where you get the $2 trillion estimate or the fact that you think the federal government has an annual operating budget of greater than $12 trillion, but the source wasn't reality.
And on top of that, it's a moot point because nobody has ever put forth a realistic plan to take away "everything over 200k a person makes."
And you can't provide a post where someone laid out clear ideas other than "taxes are too high and they should be lower," without any context as to what should be cut out to actually, you know, pay for the fucking tax cuts.
If you don't want strawmen used against your arguments, provide some decent arguments that have more substance than a 2 second soundbite.
Do the other applications on that phone change appearance when a phone call is in progress? It would seem not.
But even if those phones' applications don't, Android phones' do. Not only does the notification area show the state of the phone call, but the individual applications can query the state of the phone and update their interface if they want. Most don't, because it's generally an unnecessary and barely used feature anyway.
Umm, quite possibly, if one of the companies held by the mutual fund does their risk analysis and finds that probability of death * cost of death profit, then yes, it's basically murder.
But that's not really the point anyway. If you buy into a mutual fund that holds stock for a company that profits from fraud, and you profited from that fraud, you should take part of the hit when (or, more likely, *if*) the fraud is discovered.
Quit making this a women's rights issue. Nip it right in the bud and say "no, a fetus is not a person. End of story." By arguing the whole women's rights angle, you lend credibility to the idea that a fetus is a human being in the first place, and that now you're having to argue whether the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus.
Don't play their game. Until it knows its own name, it's not a person. I'm willing to compromise and say that at birth it becomes a person.
Yeah, except that the conflict of interest isn't anywhere near equivalent.
Patent attorney: if patent system exists, patent attorney has a job. If patent system doesn't exist, patent attorney doesn't have a job.
Software developer: if software patent system exists, software developer has a job (demonstratably -- in fact we have this situation right now!). If patent system doesn't exist, software developer... still has their job. Maybe you can argue that the job might be easier if we get rid of the software patents, and in that there's some sort of conflict of interest, but you'll still have a really tough time convincing me that the level of bias is even remotely equal.
statistically are far less of a factor than the three things I mentioned
Provide some of these statistics, please.
But you'll never gear the safety nannies try to pass this because their agenda is anti-cellphone not pro-safety
If they were really safety nannies, as you claim, then what sense does it make for them to not go after other sources of distraction as well?
IMO, if you're doing something -- *anything* -- that distracts you while driving, you're a selfish asshole. If you cause an accident, even non-fatal, while voluntarily distracted, you should suffer a much larger penalty than just the ding to your insurance rates. Take responsibility for your actions and all that.
Slashdot Mirror
The entire point of a principle is that it's something which is so important, you adhere to it even if it hurts you. So I don't think what you said can suffice as an excuse.
Let me guess: you vote GOP.
--Jeremy
The FUD is strong with you.
--Jeremy
I have yet to see a nation or government take the official stance that Occupy are terrorists. ...
You do NOT have the right to squat in public spaces until the world does things your way, or we'd still have grey-haired hippies camped out all across the nation demanding that you "free the weed."
You're right. They haven't been labeled as terrorists. Instead they've been labeled as lazy, ignorant fools who should just go get jobs.
--Jeremy
Fragmentation affects developers. It means they either have to maintain many different versions of their software, put work into making the app auto-configure for many different devices and test it on all of those devices, program for the lowest common denominator, or make apps that don't work on a proportion of phones.
You're either not a developer or not a good one. I've "dealt" with fragmentation in Android applications, and it takes all of half a day to research how to handle it effectively and 15 minutes to implement -- unless you have a really shitty spaghetti codebase.
Also, most apps don't use the kinds of features that would be affected by fragmentation anyway, so the point is beyond moot.
--Jeremy
Force me to buy health care?
Thank the Republicans for this one.
Force me to do my charity work through increased government taxes?
That's quite a stretch.
Now this guy wants to force me to buy solar panels?
You're already required to meet a *ton* of standards when building shit. I guess you don't feel that you should be forced to have running water or meet insulation efficiency standards either.
because they are lazy and choose not to contribute to society
Yeah, let's just take them out back and kill them. Anyone who receives any assistance whatsoever is obviously just a worthless piece of shit. You keep your guns loaded anyway, right? Might as well get some use out of them.
--Jeremy
I doubt heavyly, that Apple made any claims at all. They only offered their AppleCare package.
But you don't know what Apple claimed at all, if anything, so you're just talking out your ass.
--Jeremy
Hopefully they don't come in a rectangular form factor with a bezel around the screen; that might infringe on someone's design patents.
--Jeremy
What if I don't want my tax dollars going to politicians and wanna-be politicians?
Ok, so instead you'll just get to pay higher rates on everything you buy because the corporations that sell them to you have to pay for campaign contributions instead. That way you can remain blissfully ignorant of how your money actually gets into the political process while campaign costs absolutely skyrocket each year.
What, you think they're making donations with their own money? How quaint. I'll bet you think that their donations to the Red Cross or breast cancer awareness somehow affect their bottom lines, too.
--Jeremy
Obama's Eeeeevil rich income range.
And you accuse others of strawman arguments.
--Jeremy
You're talking out your ass. I don't know where you get the $2 trillion estimate or the fact that you think the federal government has an annual operating budget of greater than $12 trillion, but the source wasn't reality.
And on top of that, it's a moot point because nobody has ever put forth a realistic plan to take away "everything over 200k a person makes."
--Jeremy
The politics entered the equation when the GOP decided to hold the tax cuts hostage by tying it to a COMPLETELY UNRELATED pet project.
Remember kids, earmarks and rider bills are *only* bad when the other side or someone from another state does it.
--Jeremy
And you can't provide a post where someone laid out clear ideas other than "taxes are too high and they should be lower," without any context as to what should be cut out to actually, you know, pay for the fucking tax cuts.
If you don't want strawmen used against your arguments, provide some decent arguments that have more substance than a 2 second soundbite.
--Jeremy
Hey, in case you are in a very high tax bracket or just hadn't noticed, YOU ALREADY GOT A FEDERAL TAX BREAK UNDER OBAMA.
--Jeremy
But how much money is the government entitled to? 25%? 50%? All? The amount that I specifically owe for government services I received?
0%? How about just enough to pay off the wars that W got us into and the deficits that he and Reagan are mostly responsible for?
If they take all, I'll stop working.
Fortunately, nobody has ever or will ever argue that it should, so this is a completely irrelevant point. Insightful my ass.
--Jeremy
Nah, when it's a privilege escalation bug exploitable through a web browser in iOS we just call it "unlocking" the phone.
--Jeremy
Do the other applications on that phone change appearance when a phone call is in progress? It would seem not.
But even if those phones' applications don't, Android phones' do. Not only does the notification area show the state of the phone call, but the individual applications can query the state of the phone and update their interface if they want. Most don't, because it's generally an unnecessary and barely used feature anyway.
--Jeremy
Umm, quite possibly, if one of the companies held by the mutual fund does their risk analysis and finds that probability of death * cost of death profit, then yes, it's basically murder.
But that's not really the point anyway. If you buy into a mutual fund that holds stock for a company that profits from fraud, and you profited from that fraud, you should take part of the hit when (or, more likely, *if*) the fraud is discovered.
--Jeremy
Well the reality is that we have a very small influence on who gets elected, but a vanishingly small influence on what legislation gets passed.
--Jeremy
Quit making this a women's rights issue. Nip it right in the bud and say "no, a fetus is not a person. End of story." By arguing the whole women's rights angle, you lend credibility to the idea that a fetus is a human being in the first place, and that now you're having to argue whether the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus.
Don't play their game. Until it knows its own name, it's not a person. I'm willing to compromise and say that at birth it becomes a person.
--Jeremy
In terms of human rights, that answer is pretty much a simple "yes".
--Jeremy
Yeah, except that the conflict of interest isn't anywhere near equivalent.
Patent attorney: if patent system exists, patent attorney has a job. If patent system doesn't exist, patent attorney doesn't have a job.
Software developer: if software patent system exists, software developer has a job (demonstratably -- in fact we have this situation right now!). If patent system doesn't exist, software developer ... still has their job. Maybe you can argue that the job might be easier if we get rid of the software patents, and in that there's some sort of conflict of interest, but you'll still have a really tough time convincing me that the level of bias is even remotely equal.
--Jeremy
Not even remotely the same thing; if you want a more apt comparison, look at how long Google's own phones are supported.
--Jeremy
So i can't shift my transmission, cover my mouth when coughing or sneezing, can't adjust my mirrors if I'm having issues, etc?
Nice strawmen. Masterfully played.
--Jeremy
statistically are far less of a factor than the three things I mentioned
Provide some of these statistics, please.
But you'll never gear the safety nannies try to pass this because their agenda is anti-cellphone not pro-safety
If they were really safety nannies, as you claim, then what sense does it make for them to not go after other sources of distraction as well?
IMO, if you're doing something -- *anything* -- that distracts you while driving, you're a selfish asshole. If you cause an accident, even non-fatal, while voluntarily distracted, you should suffer a much larger penalty than just the ding to your insurance rates. Take responsibility for your actions and all that.
--Jeremy
Yep, so because there's a drawback to this in an utterly extreme condition, WE SHOULD ENTIRELY IGNORE IT AS A POSSIBLE SOLUTION.
--Jeremy