WTF would anyone use in-store Wi-Fi in a retail store? I have trouble even imagining a meaningful benefit to this. I don't even use "free" Wi-Fi at places like the airport outside of an emergency. Cellular network connections are generally faster, more secure, more private, and less hassle.
Maybe for people with bad data plans it's more of an issue, but in general, I agree. A grocery store that I shop at offers free wi-fi, but I turn off my wi-fi when I go into the store. It is actually slower for me to pull up info on their coupon app on the wi-fi than over the cell connection.
get rid of the Electoral college and a few big cities run the nation
No they won't. Get rid of the electoral college and everyone gets an equal say in who rules.
Campaigning would only occur in major cities, so they would have a much larger impact than now.
The fact that more people live in place A than place B does not mean that the people in place B should be given more power in a democracy,
It's called federalism, and it was put in place for a reason. The founding fathers realized that even though we are one country, we are composed of several different cultures with different values. A law that might make sense in a metropolitan area might not make sense in a rural area, so you don't want the population centers making all the rules for everyone else.
...they will examine it all for clues to provide targeted advertising.
Next will be looking for hate speech and porn and reporting it to the authorities.
That was my first thought: They'll index it & update your advertising on searches. Of course, you could always point it to an encrypted backup file and have it back that up for you...
Call him all the names you want. He's uniting people left and right on a common goal. And companies are spending their own money on things the taxpayers were before.
You could probably thank Trump too. Not only is he making companies pay for their own green initiatives, he's also made Democrats embrace the concept of federalism.
Fake news generated online only works if the mainstream media picks it up and reports it for a week. Most people with minimal critical thinking skills will dismiss a fake news story if it only exists online.
During the last election, I had a few friends that were always sharing fake "Hillary Clinton Going to Prison Soon!" type stories almost every day from siteyouneverheardof.com. They might have been gullible enough to believe it, or had hope that it would be true, but even in the absence of these kinds of fake news stories, none of those guys would have ever voted for Clinton.
Just look at all the articles published by Huffington Post and CNN.com, so many were patently false. Millions was spent publishing fake news to benefit Hillary.
On the bright side, CNN is now launching a real news site for those interested in things that actually happened.
Somehow I doubt that your statement is ever true. People just don't work the way you think they do. Your statement, however, is appallingly arrogant and condescending. Do you understand that normal people have these things called emotions? Do you understand the normal people often act on their emotions without thinking through the consequences? Do you understand that this type of behaviour is particularly common among people between the ages of 15 and 23?
It doesn't have to be true among the 15 to 23 year-olds, but the profs who are indoctrinating them are very well aware.
Except that a lot of them are. Most accept government funding and have publicly elected officials serving on their boards, so that makes them an extension of the government. They are regulated by the Department of Education and they have to abide by special rules as a result of their acceptance of that money. He who pays the piper call the tune.
The 1st Amendment protects your speech from the Government arresting you for what you say.
No, the 1st Amendment protects you from prior restraint. If you use speech in a way that starts a riot, you most certainly can get arrested.
Universities can invite whatever speakers they want and disinvite them as well. Even the proposed law in Wisconsin is not a 1st Amendment issue. It is just a political law that public enforces the rights that everyone already has.
Except that in most instances, recent speakers like Ann Coulter (who I really dislike) were invited by student groups only to be cancelled by the administration. The claim made by Berkeley is that the group didn't follow the proper procedures, but then later admitted that they cancelled it due to "security concerns." And that is the sad state of affairs that we have today. In a civil society, what would happen is a free exchange of ideas. You let a person come & make their speech, then you challenge it in the open marketplace of ideas instead of resorting to violence. Violence is the refuge of people who understand that their ideas don't have any merit, so they must use physical force to intimidate anyone who might oppose them.
If I discovered my kids had drugs, I would be dealing with neither a drug dealer nor a convenience store clerk. You really think that I'm going to suddenly start buying the stuff for them if I find them doing something that stupid?
I think you misunderstood my intent. I guess to rephrase, if you found your kids with drugs, would you rather confront a drug dealer or a store clerk? I know I would want to stop it from happening on both the supply & the demand side. Thankfully, our kids never got involved in things like that.
Don't be silly. Legalizing a drug doesn't make the drug safer.
Oh really? During alcohol prohibition, people dying from tainted alcohol was a common occurrence. Having alcohol become legal almost instantly improved the quality of the product, making it safer. Also, if you had kids and discovered that they had drugs, would you rather deal with a drug dealer or a convenience store clerk.
The discussion is about legalizing all drugs, not just pot. Implying that all drugs are as safe to use as pot is is, well, not worth continuing the discussion.
Who implied that? You're making a straw man argument. Any currently illegal drug would be safer if they were legalized, but that doesn't mean all drugs are equally safe.
Gary Johnson might not have been a very good candidate, but one good point he made was the U.S. has the best policies in place to cause drug users to die. Trillions of dollars spent, and they can't even keep the drugs out of prisons. Everyone would be better off if you could just buy crack, meth & heroin at your local party store, and rededicate the money being spent on imprisoning people to treatment programs. I just saw an article that said it now costs more to keep someone in prison than it does to send them to Harvard for a year.
Not sure I approve of the clickbait title, but from my limited gaming experiences the overall game seems to be fairly original. Gotta give them some points for trying something new.
It seems more like a simulation than a game. Games have objectives. What objective is there in "Everything" other than to zoom in & out on stuff? Do you get achievements for "100 bear summersaults" or "bump into 100 ladybugs"? Does it ever finish? How do you win?
Which he said only once, and that was accepting the nomination, not the election results...
I wasn't clear about which acceptance speech, but that's what I meant. You're right in that it was only once, clearly my recollection wasn't as good as I thought.
Ok, I'll apologize for that one and I note it was uncalled for. But Trump is not nearly about "me" as Obama or most left leaning presidents (and candidates...) have been.
Apology accepted. No arguments over Obama either. I'm glad he's gone, but not sure Trump is really much better. The whole continuation of budget fiasco has given me doubts. If he had vetoed it, I would have been much more hopeful.
It would be nice if you statist supporters would refrain from outright lying at least once... But I guess that is asking way too much of integrity you completely lack. What a shame that every single post from your kind has to be corrected lest the lies spread.
*sigh* Statist supporter? Did you even notice my sig? I've been voting Libertarian for the past 20 years.
I know several Trump voters who were voting against Clinton because they saw her being president an intolerable situation. Out of my 200 or so friends & family on Facebook, there were maybe a dozen Clinton supporters (mostly female or gay), and none of them were enthusiastic about it. They saw Trump as an existential threat to feminist causes, so they were motivated by fear.
"I'm with Her" is what lost her this race. It highlights a self centered, corrupt, egoist. It was basically all about Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. "She's with me" would have been a far better slogan. Push a narrative that she is with the people and understand what the common person is going through. Instead of Hillary and her campaign shouting "Me, Me, Me", they should have been shouting "You, You, You"...and that's why Trump won the union states and beat Hillary.
To be fair, Trump was pretty "Me, Me, Me" as well. In his acceptance speech, he said "Only I can do this, only I can do that, only I blah, blah, blah." Hillary's slogan "I'm with Her" was really just a euphemism for "I want a female president, it's our turn!"
So, do you think she will run roughshod over the DNC to run again in 2020?
Not going to happen. She's been throwing everyone that helped her on her campaign under the bus, and I doubt she'll be healthier in 2020 either. Plus, even if she sought the nomination, she'd probably have to contend with Lezzy Warren, Corey Booker & Uncle Joe Biden. Nobody's going to clear the way for her, now that the Clinton Crime Family Foundation money laundering operation has gone belly up.
Slashdot Mirror
WTF would anyone use in-store Wi-Fi in a retail store? I have trouble even imagining a meaningful benefit to this. I don't even use "free" Wi-Fi at places like the airport outside of an emergency. Cellular network connections are generally faster, more secure, more private, and less hassle.
Maybe for people with bad data plans it's more of an issue, but in general, I agree. A grocery store that I shop at offers free wi-fi, but I turn off my wi-fi when I go into the store. It is actually slower for me to pull up info on their coupon app on the wi-fi than over the cell connection.
get rid of the Electoral college and a few big cities run the nation
No they won't. Get rid of the electoral college and everyone gets an equal say in who rules.
Campaigning would only occur in major cities, so they would have a much larger impact than now.
The fact that more people live in place A than place B does not mean that the people in place B should be given more power in a democracy,
It's called federalism, and it was put in place for a reason. The founding fathers realized that even though we are one country, we are composed of several different cultures with different values. A law that might make sense in a metropolitan area might not make sense in a rural area, so you don't want the population centers making all the rules for everyone else.
...they will examine it all for clues to provide targeted advertising.
Next will be looking for hate speech and porn and reporting it to the authorities.
That was my first thought: They'll index it & update your advertising on searches. Of course, you could always point it to an encrypted backup file and have it back that up for you...
Call him all the names you want. He's uniting people left and right on a common goal. And companies are spending their own money on things the taxpayers were before.
You could probably thank Trump too. Not only is he making companies pay for their own green initiatives, he's also made Democrats embrace the concept of federalism.
Fake news generated online only works if the mainstream media picks it up and reports it for a week. Most people with minimal critical thinking skills will dismiss a fake news story if it only exists online.
During the last election, I had a few friends that were always sharing fake "Hillary Clinton Going to Prison Soon!" type stories almost every day from siteyouneverheardof.com. They might have been gullible enough to believe it, or had hope that it would be true, but even in the absence of these kinds of fake news stories, none of those guys would have ever voted for Clinton.
Just look at all the articles published by Huffington Post and CNN.com, so many were patently false. Millions was spent publishing fake news to benefit Hillary.
On the bright side, CNN is now launching a real news site for those interested in things that actually happened.
I would not suddenly start buying drugs for my kids when I find them using drugs.
I think you're being intentionally obtuse. I never suggested that anyone buy drugs for their kids.
Somehow I doubt that your statement is ever true. People just don't work the way you think they do. Your statement, however, is appallingly arrogant and condescending. Do you understand that normal people have these things called emotions? Do you understand the normal people often act on their emotions without thinking through the consequences? Do you understand that this type of behaviour is particularly common among people between the ages of 15 and 23?
It doesn't have to be true among the 15 to 23 year-olds, but the profs who are indoctrinating them are very well aware.
If your speech has the ability to cause a riot on its own, without regard for anyone else's choicesâ"you must be a magician.
The law seems to disagree with you...
Universities are not the Government.
Except that a lot of them are. Most accept government funding and have publicly elected officials serving on their boards, so that makes them an extension of the government. They are regulated by the Department of Education and they have to abide by special rules as a result of their acceptance of that money. He who pays the piper call the tune.
The 1st Amendment protects your speech from the Government arresting you for what you say.
No, the 1st Amendment protects you from prior restraint. If you use speech in a way that starts a riot, you most certainly can get arrested.
Universities can invite whatever speakers they want and disinvite them as well. Even the proposed law in Wisconsin is not a 1st Amendment issue. It is just a political law that public enforces the rights that everyone already has.
Except that in most instances, recent speakers like Ann Coulter (who I really dislike) were invited by student groups only to be cancelled by the administration. The claim made by Berkeley is that the group didn't follow the proper procedures, but then later admitted that they cancelled it due to "security concerns." And that is the sad state of affairs that we have today. In a civil society, what would happen is a free exchange of ideas. You let a person come & make their speech, then you challenge it in the open marketplace of ideas instead of resorting to violence. Violence is the refuge of people who understand that their ideas don't have any merit, so they must use physical force to intimidate anyone who might oppose them.
If I discovered my kids had drugs, I would be dealing with neither a drug dealer nor a convenience store clerk. You really think that I'm going to suddenly start buying the stuff for them if I find them doing something that stupid?
I think you misunderstood my intent. I guess to rephrase, if you found your kids with drugs, would you rather confront a drug dealer or a store clerk? I know I would want to stop it from happening on both the supply & the demand side. Thankfully, our kids never got involved in things like that.
Don't be silly. Legalizing a drug doesn't make the drug safer.
Oh really? During alcohol prohibition, people dying from tainted alcohol was a common occurrence. Having alcohol become legal almost instantly improved the quality of the product, making it safer. Also, if you had kids and discovered that they had drugs, would you rather deal with a drug dealer or a convenience store clerk.
The discussion is about legalizing all drugs, not just pot. Implying that all drugs are as safe to use as pot is is, well, not worth continuing the discussion.
Who implied that? You're making a straw man argument. Any currently illegal drug would be safer if they were legalized, but that doesn't mean all drugs are equally safe.
Point 3: Make it retroactive so he is already in violation for his deleted Tweets.
Nope, that would be ex post facto...
Gary Johnson might not have been a very good candidate, but one good point he made was the U.S. has the best policies in place to cause drug users to die. Trillions of dollars spent, and they can't even keep the drugs out of prisons. Everyone would be better off if you could just buy crack, meth & heroin at your local party store, and rededicate the money being spent on imprisoning people to treatment programs. I just saw an article that said it now costs more to keep someone in prison than it does to send them to Harvard for a year.
Not sure I approve of the clickbait title, but from my limited gaming experiences the overall game seems to be fairly original. Gotta give them some points for trying something new.
It seems more like a simulation than a game. Games have objectives. What objective is there in "Everything" other than to zoom in & out on stuff? Do you get achievements for "100 bear summersaults" or "bump into 100 ladybugs"? Does it ever finish? How do you win?
Well, that's impressive... they've developed cars that burn combustion engines as fuel??
That sounds extremely inefficient!
Which he said only once, and that was accepting the nomination, not the election results...
I wasn't clear about which acceptance speech, but that's what I meant. You're right in that it was only once, clearly my recollection wasn't as good as I thought.
Ok, I'll apologize for that one and I note it was uncalled for. But Trump is not nearly about "me" as Obama or most left leaning presidents (and candidates...) have been.
Apology accepted. No arguments over Obama either. I'm glad he's gone, but not sure Trump is really much better. The whole continuation of budget fiasco has given me doubts. If he had vetoed it, I would have been much more hopeful.
Meanwhile I cannot find any examples of what you are talking about in Trump's actual speech
It took me a whole 5 seconds, I guess it was "I alone" instead of "Only I", but I was paraphrasing: Donald Trump accepts GOP nomination, says 'I alone can fix' system
It would be nice if you statist supporters would refrain from outright lying at least once... But I guess that is asking way too much of integrity you completely lack. What a shame that every single post from your kind has to be corrected lest the lies spread.
*sigh* Statist supporter? Did you even notice my sig? I've been voting Libertarian for the past 20 years.
Heck, if the earth was buried 3 feet deep in pizza. Pizza would be considered a pollutant.
Yeah, but it would a totally *awesome* pollutant.
The problem with MAGA is that it implies that America stopped being great -- which isn't something most Americans believe.
It's something a lot of Tea Partiers, etc., believed due to Obama being President.
Every Trump voter I know was voting for him.
I know several Trump voters who were voting against Clinton because they saw her being president an intolerable situation. Out of my 200 or so friends & family on Facebook, there were maybe a dozen Clinton supporters (mostly female or gay), and none of them were enthusiastic about it. They saw Trump as an existential threat to feminist causes, so they were motivated by fear.
Biden should run in 2020. The Onion articles would be epic. This country needs to laugh again.
Wait, I thought Trump was going to be comedy gold for comedians and late night TV hosts? The Onion articles on Uncle Joe were pretty epic though. :-D
"I'm with Her" is what lost her this race. It highlights a self centered, corrupt, egoist. It was basically all about Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. "She's with me" would have been a far better slogan. Push a narrative that she is with the people and understand what the common person is going through. Instead of Hillary and her campaign shouting "Me, Me, Me", they should have been shouting "You, You, You"...and that's why Trump won the union states and beat Hillary.
To be fair, Trump was pretty "Me, Me, Me" as well. In his acceptance speech, he said "Only I can do this, only I can do that, only I blah, blah, blah." Hillary's slogan "I'm with Her" was really just a euphemism for "I want a female president, it's our turn!"
So, do you think she will run roughshod over the DNC to run again in 2020?
Not going to happen. She's been throwing everyone that helped her on her campaign under the bus, and I doubt she'll be healthier in 2020 either. Plus, even if she sought the nomination, she'd probably have to contend with Lezzy Warren, Corey Booker & Uncle Joe Biden. Nobody's going to clear the way for her, now that the Clinton Crime Family Foundation money laundering operation has gone belly up.