On top of which, you can still choose to have a service performed privately and medicare will pay a portion of those costs. And there are a range of private insurance options to cover non-essential services or private choices.
Maxine Waters, suggested doing it to the point where people like Sanders couldn't get food anywhere and would starve to death
Really? The quote's I've read have her calling on her supporters to confront staff members of the current government and to tell them that they aren't welcome. Nothing about doing same to Republican voters. Nothing about not getting food anywhere or starving.
Can you link to a citation for what seems to be otherwise an exaggeration?
and I haven't seen many DNC leaders saying it was wrong
Say what was wrong? Confronting staff members of the government and telling them that they were unwelcome or the straw man you invented.
We have a major political party pushing for the starvation of half the country because they "voted wrong"
Ah, not ignorant. Trolling for a 'let's you and him fight'. Carry on.
“unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.”
Apart from some hand waving, nothing in the article contradicts this statement.
The rest is cherry picking, out of context and exaggeration.
Al Gore was a politician doing his share of exaggeration and simplification, but if this is the standard of your counter arguments, then you are looking for confirmation of a position you already hold. It's an editorial piece, poorly organised, poorly researched and absent even the pretence of balance or impartiality.
*shrug* I've seen similar patterns of argument in other fields with believers vs science. Cherry pick exceptions and outliers, find some people who have made exaggerated claims that aren't generally held and argue that taints the whole field. Whether a creationist or a climate change denier, the form's the same. 'Skepticism' is fine when it's even handed. When it's a mask for refusing to accept evidence that contradicts a belief it's just denial.
No one should believe what they read on the internet without some due diligence and a critical examination of the material, the presentation and possibly the source and this is unconvincing.
There will always be some people trying to profit from an existing disaster or by convincing you that disaster is coming. You prove nothing by finding such people. How about, instead,
I'd love to find out that anthropocentric climate change is either not changing or is not anthropocentric. It would make life easier and a little more pleasant. I stand to gain nothing by believing and it would make life easier and a little more pleasant to be shown I'm wrong. Being accused, indirectly, of having fallen for a pitch by someone motivated by greed fails to account for both the reluctance to believe and the weight of evidence that has overcome that reluctance. I first saw arguments and evidence for climate change back in the 80s (Dr David Suzuki was the first I can recall). Then it was mostly a topic for academic discussion - there certainly wasn't any money in it.
eBay has policies about refunds and the fees associated with them as do other sites. Do it too often and your account is flagged for investigation and/or cancelled. Having a history of 'no item / bad inventory' interactions with legit buyers makes plausible deniability harder to maintain.
With all that said, the ridiculously overpriced items are easy to spot and may be amateurs or people going for a short run of 'sales'. It would be harder to spot those who do as you suggest - pricing items at the top of the price envelope to reduce real buyers, but not so much as to attract attention like these do. Maybe you'd have the odd legit sale you'd have to decline, but on the whole, I imaging that this would prove more stable in the long run.
I'm aware that Slashdot's 'no deletion' policy was clearer and cleaner in the pasty. I was here for the furore over the Scientology takedown.
Blocking a post (via filters for content or proxy) and moderating are very different from deletion. So is playing with how moderation points are assigned. I realise that these are restrictions on what can be 'said', and are part of a broader definition of censorship, but, for me, the deletion of something that has been 'said' is far more problematic and for more dangerous. If I think that I've communicated, only to find my post edited or deleted without my knowledge or consent, then my words have been changed. If I know that I cannot post, I can make other arrangements (as the GNAA posts demonstrate, you can't stop the message).
Deleting has a much greater chilling effect than up-front restrictions, IMHO.
If you're bothered by censorship, the filtering of the n-word should be far more problematic.
Why? It's trivial to bypass as has been demonstrated time and again, here and everywhere else. And I cannot believe that Slashdot editors are so ignorant as to believe otherwise. What they can do, however, when they receive a complaint is to be able to say 'look, we tried'. I/we know it's pointless, but that may not stop an injunction or court order. If they can demonstrate that it's pointless, that's another matter.
perhaps having the side effect of preventing some discussion of racism
That's a weak argument. 'Perhaps'? If a discussion is prevented because someone can't work out how to use a synonym, alternate spelling or character substitution, then this isn't a tech site.
The lameness filter is part of a larger 'post quality' process that includes excluding certain characters, line length etc. It's passive and doesn't stop someone who is determined. GNAA hasn't stopped and the reason it's decreased is that it's stopped getting a reaction. APK will never stop because he's mentally ill. The anti-Creimer posts will fade, just like the Kristopeit (sp?) posts (remember those - very similar MO to the Creimer spam inc. creating accounts to pretend to be the target). Grit teeth. Endure. If the poster is sane, they'll get bored when they stop getting a reaction.
Filtering doesn't work (see both APK and GNAA) and deletion is the part of censorship that I find most worrisome. I've presumed you were advocating one, the other or both and I apologise if that's a mistaken assumption.
Some software asks to send anonymised data about crashes to the devs so they can work on bugs. That's 'good telemetry' IMHO. It's opt-in. It states up front what it's for and if you don't trust that, you don't have to participate (although if you don't trust that, why are you running the software?)
If MS made Windows 10 telemetry opt-in, explained what it was used for and then stuck by your choice not to participate (rather than resetting your choices every time you upgrade)... then it would go some way to answering the criticism it rightly receives.
Slashdot is one of the few sites that doesn't delete unwanted posts. That means we get spam, but it also means we don't have posts that are deemed 'unwanted' simply because they are confronting.
None of these posts appear at +1. Most are modded to -1. Set your viewing threshhold to 0 or +1 and they will disappear. So will a lot of other A/C posts, like yours, but then, perhaps you should take advantage of the systems already in place, rather than calling for a campaign to modify an existing system so that it's more to your liking.
I'd prefer to put up with some spam than to see yet another site have to have editors making choices about what is and isn't wanted.
You'd learn quickly that whining leads to more suffering, and you would quit your bleating.
One aspect of the brutalisation that is bootcamp is to break down a normal person and to rebuild them into an effective soldier. That includes obedience to orders. While I respect the sacrifice that involves, to suggest that it is anything other than an ugly necessity or that it has application in a broader context suggests a kind of fetishisation of the military that is disturbing.
Obeying a bad law is not a virtue.
It is a necessary evil after douche bags like the shoe bomber did what they did
The aim of terorism is not the direct damage, but the disruption of everyday life for people who might otherwise be able to ignore the conflict. To that end, the degree to which the US has increased surveillance and curtailled the freedom of its citizens is an incredible success for terrorism and part of why it keeps being used against the US.
Your acceptance of the security theater is a 'win' for terrorism. Your chances of dying due to a terrorist attack before and after these measures is statistically unchanged.
That your only comparison to the TSA search is a prison strip search should give you pause. Whether it's better or not the very fact that you choose boot camp and prison admission is an admission that this is something that should not be happening as a matter of course to non-criminal, non-military people.
Straw man. No-one claims it is 'all' bad. And if it were opt-in like so many 'would you like to send anonymised data so we can improve product X' then there would be no outcry. It's the fact that not only is it not opt-in, it's a constant effort to remain opt-out.
has publicly stated that any telemetry data they may collect is anonymized
Corporations make statements all the time. Some are even true when they make them. A change of 'direction' and whatever promise or guarantee that was made may change. Without notice. Given that Microsoft has a history of 'changing direction', dropping things they promised or doing things they said they wouldn't I have no idea why you'd even consider this statement with anything other than suspicion. But let's assume a neutral stance. Microsoft claims no foul. Where's the proof? Where's the independent audit? Where's the option to say 'no thanks?'.
The burden of proof is not on those saying that there is a risk of foul play or even just negligence. The burden is on those giving the guarantee that this data (of ours) is safe with them and will be used only for good.
either prove or disprove any accusation
No problem. I look forward to your proof that the collection of my data has no negative impact for me, now or in the future. That's the direction the burden points. It's not on me to prove foul play or negligence. In the absence of proof, I would like to choose not to trust my data to someone. Being unable to do that is a problem for some people, even if you have different priorities.
Until people realize that opinions and unsubstantiated accusations are just speeding up the decline of western society we are well and truly fucked
You are guilty of the very thing you are decrying. Clearly this isn't something that concerns you. Your inability to understand, on a nerd site no less, that this is of significant concern to a number of people is a symptom of the very fractiousness you accuse others of.
pushing misleading or false information (e.g. Snopes).
Your use of the word 'pushing' makes it sound as though Snopes has an agenda that it is pursuing. I'd like to see some evidence to back up that assertion.
I've seen Snopes perform sloppy research. I've seen articles that were improved over time.
Snopes is no more authorative than Wikipedia, but both have the same thing going for them. They cite sources.
Snopes tells you what it did to reach the conclusion it has drawn. If those sources are incomplete, that's apparent. If information is from a source you consider biased, that's apparent. It raises the bar from the usual assertion and denial and that is invaluable.
Rather than criticising Snopes for not being perfect or unbiased, how about applauding the methodology? Encouraging people to demand sources and citations and then to check them, themselves is the only way to elevate conversation out of the 'he said/she said' nonsense of sensationalism.
There a many ways to shape perception by providing more information, rather than just restricting it. 'Letting it flow' is not an answer to information manipulation. Criticism and analysis is, and whether Snopes has an agenda or is simply imperfect, they are at least attempting to provide both.
I'm not sure what you're using, but decent Li ion batteries should last about 1000 cycles before they hit 80%. At one charge per day that's over two and a half years.
I've got an iPhone 6+ that's probably nearly four years old. A previous owner had a 'typical' usage for about 2 years; mine has been 'light'. Probably charged once a day for most of that period and just now getting down to 83% (self reported).
In the US, which is a lot more socially - upward and downward - mobile,
That's the belief, and the basis of the 'American Dream', but it's not borne out by statistics. The US has some of the lowest economic (and hence social) mobility of OECD nations.
It's hard not to view the continued insistence that the US rewards hard work as anything more than a self-serving narrative by those at the top. Just as food stamps and cheap housing help hold off the revolution, so too does the belief that if people don't rock the boat and play by the rules, they (or at least) their children can enjoy the fruits of society.
It's not just hunger that sparks revolution. Knowing that your children will be poor, no matter how hard you or they work, will do the trick even if it takes longer.
Please don't use 'they started it' as a justification when you are called on your own behaviour. Either your behaviour is bad, or it isn't.
No one is perfect, but if you can't say 'fair cop' when called out, then it makes it hard to extricate the rest of your point. Agreement becomes a tacit acceptance of the behaviour, even with caveats and exceptions.
For all intents and purposes, all of those are public forums.
Not by a legal, nor constitutional definition.
the only way to protect that culture by regulating what those companies are allowed to do with their privately-funded public forums.
Hollywood/large-media-corporations also 'mold entire communities and becomes part of the culture' - should they be treated the same way?
I think that regulation of essential services and utilities in areas where monopolies either form naturally or where competition reduces quality of service is useful and desirable. I'm not convinced that the popularity of these services makes them either essential or monopolies.
The regulation of telecommunication companies would be better compared to ISPs, not services that are built on top of neutral utilities.
Caveat, I'm not from the US and do not use Facebook or much social media.
By that logic, there are no public fora anywhere on the internet
Largely correct.
Your constitution applies only to the actions of the government, not private individuals.
situations where private property is also a publicly accessible areas for the public to get together doesn't get treated the same way that a private office building would where there's only specifically authorized people allowed to come and go.
You are incorrect.
Please provide citations to support your position. Google has any number of links to articles, summaries and commentary that all say the same thing - the constitutional protection for speech applies to the government, not private individuals.
You may be confusing a state granting additional rights or protection of free speech with those protected by the constitution. See Pruneyard Shopping Center vs Robins. I would strongly recommend reading the summary at the bottom of the article which includes reactions by other states, test cases and judicial commentary.
I'm just curious, was the money from Ajit Pai worth losing what little self-respect you might have had?
You may have a touch of the Dunning-Kruger going on. Might want to reign in the insults while you get that sorted.
Apple? You mean the power supply where you can remove the mains connector to reveal that it connects via a IEC 60320 C7/'figure 8' socket, allowing a short cable to be installed moving the 'wart' to the middle of the length like you want? It's been a while since I checked and may be recalling incorrectly, but I thought that while Apple sold a cable with a moulded connector that fit in the socket and merged with the 'wart', that the socket itself was standard and you could use any suitable cable.
Frankly, these are some of the best designs I've seen. Most of the bulk is away from the mains connection, so it doesn't interfere with other plugs and you can switch between wall-wart and cable-wart.
Except that a good chunk of these are a plastic shell with some potted electronics inside without anything resembling attention to heat transfer or air cooling.
I realise that this brings the cost down and that manufacturers would prefer to go with a standard case regardless of what is going inside it, and that people who'd pay a little extra for a smaller overall package with decent thermal design are too small a market to address...
So yes. It's about cooling. Inefficient, 'good enough' but most importantly - cheap.
You might want to look at uMatrix (link for Chrome version). It does some of what you want (site specific handling of calls to different resources with a default that blocks external resources), but I don't think it allows you to substitute your own code.
Probably my 'if you had to use just one...' extension.
I'd argue that if someone plays devil's advocate and doesn't announce it, then they are taking advantage of one of the social niceties that help smooth communication - the trust that people are being genuine when they represent or argue an opinion. If someone is attempting to examine a position that they don't feel strongly, that should be clear from their manner, argument and response. If they present an appearance of belief that is different from what they actually hold, whether for the purpose of Socratic education or trolling, then they are exploiting that trust. To the degree that this erodes and degrades social interaction, then I'm not sure that there's much difference between a dishonest DA and troll.
Looking at the original meaning (pulling a baited hook through the water, esp. multiple lines or hooks) I'd distinguish a troll as someone who is looking for any reaction, and someone who is playing 'devil's advocate' is someone looking for a specific reaction or interaction.
This isn't perfect. Some of my favourite trolls have been very specific (the chiro posts by DrBob(?), for eg) and someone who just likes to argue and uses devil's advocate as a beard cross over, IMHO.
I like that Slashdot caps both positive and negative moderation. No-one can be modded below -1, nor above +5. Because of that, and by limiting the moderation any one mod can do, you will still see posts at all levels of moderation rather than a few posts attracting the majority of attention (good or bad).
Social media reinforces homogeneity. Part of it is the echo chamber effect, partly because it is so easy to find people based on your opinions and interests.
When you are 'forced' to interact with neighbours, colleagues etc. even with location and social strata providing some conformity, there's still a greater need to accomodate differences of opinion and even belief. At the same time, being accepted and knowing that you 'belong' even if you don't have exactly the same beliefs and opinions means that there's less pressure to conform.
Finding and knowing your role in a community is a powerful drive. Communication technology has taken our drive to belong and exaggerated it into something unhealthy.
Compromise is no longer as necessary. People are unpractised at it and it takes work to overcome our 'us and them' drive. Easier to simply find a place of like minded people and not deal with 'other'. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Slashdot Mirror
Not everyone is like you.
On top of which, you can still choose to have a service performed privately and medicare will pay a portion of those costs.
And there are a range of private insurance options to cover non-essential services or private choices.
Not perfect, but it seems to work.
Maxine Waters, suggested doing it to the point where people like Sanders couldn't get food anywhere and would starve to death
Really? The quote's I've read have her calling on her supporters to confront staff members of the current government and to tell them that they aren't welcome.
Nothing about doing same to Republican voters. Nothing about not getting food anywhere or starving.
Can you link to a citation for what seems to be otherwise an exaggeration?
and I haven't seen many DNC leaders saying it was wrong
Say what was wrong? Confronting staff members of the government and telling them that they were unwelcome or the straw man you invented.
We have a major political party pushing for the starvation of half the country because they "voted wrong"
Ah, not ignorant. Trolling for a 'let's you and him fight'.
Carry on.
“unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.”
Apart from some hand waving, nothing in the article contradicts this statement.
The rest is cherry picking, out of context and exaggeration.
Al Gore was a politician doing his share of exaggeration and simplification, but if this is the standard of your counter arguments, then you are looking for confirmation of a position you already hold. It's an editorial piece, poorly organised, poorly researched and absent even the pretence of balance or impartiality.
*shrug*
I've seen similar patterns of argument in other fields with believers vs science. Cherry pick exceptions and outliers, find some people who have made exaggerated claims that aren't generally held and argue that taints the whole field. Whether a creationist or a climate change denier, the form's the same. 'Skepticism' is fine when it's even handed. When it's a mask for refusing to accept evidence that contradicts a belief it's just denial.
No one should believe what they read on the internet without some due diligence and a critical examination of the material, the presentation and possibly the source and this is unconvincing.
There will always be some people trying to profit from an existing disaster or by convincing you that disaster is coming. You prove nothing by finding such people. How about, instead,
I'd love to find out that anthropocentric climate change is either not changing or is not anthropocentric. It would make life easier and a little more pleasant. I stand to gain nothing by believing and it would make life easier and a little more pleasant to be shown I'm wrong. Being accused, indirectly, of having fallen for a pitch by someone motivated by greed fails to account for both the reluctance to believe and the weight of evidence that has overcome that reluctance. I first saw arguments and evidence for climate change back in the 80s (Dr David Suzuki was the first I can recall). Then it was mostly a topic for academic discussion - there certainly wasn't any money in it.
That raises your profile.
eBay has policies about refunds and the fees associated with them as do other sites. Do it too often and your account is flagged for investigation and/or cancelled.
Having a history of 'no item / bad inventory' interactions with legit buyers makes plausible deniability harder to maintain.
With all that said, the ridiculously overpriced items are easy to spot and may be amateurs or people going for a short run of 'sales'. It would be harder to spot those who do as you suggest - pricing items at the top of the price envelope to reduce real buyers, but not so much as to attract attention like these do. Maybe you'd have the odd legit sale you'd have to decline, but on the whole, I imaging that this would prove more stable in the long run.
I'm aware that Slashdot's 'no deletion' policy was clearer and cleaner in the pasty. I was here for the furore over the Scientology takedown.
Blocking a post (via filters for content or proxy) and moderating are very different from deletion. So is playing with how moderation points are assigned.
I realise that these are restrictions on what can be 'said', and are part of a broader definition of censorship, but, for me, the deletion of something that has been 'said' is far more problematic and for more dangerous. If I think that I've communicated, only to find my post edited or deleted without my knowledge or consent, then my words have been changed. If I know that I cannot post, I can make other arrangements (as the GNAA posts demonstrate, you can't stop the message).
Deleting has a much greater chilling effect than up-front restrictions, IMHO.
If you're bothered by censorship, the filtering of the n-word should be far more problematic.
Why? It's trivial to bypass as has been demonstrated time and again, here and everywhere else. And I cannot believe that Slashdot editors are so ignorant as to believe otherwise. What they can do, however, when they receive a complaint is to be able to say 'look, we tried'. I/we know it's pointless, but that may not stop an injunction or court order. If they can demonstrate that it's pointless, that's another matter.
perhaps having the side effect of preventing some discussion of racism
That's a weak argument. 'Perhaps'? If a discussion is prevented because someone can't work out how to use a synonym, alternate spelling or character substitution, then this isn't a tech site.
The lameness filter is part of a larger 'post quality' process that includes excluding certain characters, line length etc. It's passive and doesn't stop someone who is determined. GNAA hasn't stopped and the reason it's decreased is that it's stopped getting a reaction. APK will never stop because he's mentally ill. The anti-Creimer posts will fade, just like the Kristopeit (sp?) posts (remember those - very similar MO to the Creimer spam inc. creating accounts to pretend to be the target). Grit teeth. Endure. If the poster is sane, they'll get bored when they stop getting a reaction.
Filtering doesn't work (see both APK and GNAA) and deletion is the part of censorship that I find most worrisome. I've presumed you were advocating one, the other or both and I apologise if that's a mistaken assumption.
And thanks for the civil discussion.
Please don't forget the great Emu War.
To be fair, most of the animal population is poisonous. The ones that aren't set fires and please don't mention the sea life.
But rabbits? You'd think we could handle rabbits.
A little late, but;
Some software asks to send anonymised data about crashes to the devs so they can work on bugs. That's 'good telemetry' IMHO. It's opt-in. It states up front what it's for and if you don't trust that, you don't have to participate (although if you don't trust that, why are you running the software?)
If MS made Windows 10 telemetry opt-in, explained what it was used for and then stuck by your choice not to participate (rather than resetting your choices every time you upgrade) ... then it would go some way to answering the criticism it rightly receives.
Please don't.
Slashdot is one of the few sites that doesn't delete unwanted posts. That means we get spam, but it also means we don't have posts that are deemed 'unwanted' simply because they are confronting.
None of these posts appear at +1. Most are modded to -1. Set your viewing threshhold to 0 or +1 and they will disappear. So will a lot of other A/C posts, like yours, but then, perhaps you should take advantage of the systems already in place, rather than calling for a campaign to modify an existing system so that it's more to your liking.
I'd prefer to put up with some spam than to see yet another site have to have editors making choices about what is and isn't wanted.
You'd learn quickly that whining leads to more suffering, and you would quit your bleating.
One aspect of the brutalisation that is bootcamp is to break down a normal person and to rebuild them into an effective soldier. That includes obedience to orders.
While I respect the sacrifice that involves, to suggest that it is anything other than an ugly necessity or that it has application in a broader context suggests a kind of fetishisation of the military that is disturbing.
Obeying a bad law is not a virtue.
It is a necessary evil after douche bags like the shoe bomber did what they did
The aim of terorism is not the direct damage, but the disruption of everyday life for people who might otherwise be able to ignore the conflict. To that end, the degree to which the US has increased surveillance and curtailled the freedom of its citizens is an incredible success for terrorism and part of why it keeps being used against the US.
Your acceptance of the security theater is a 'win' for terrorism. Your chances of dying due to a terrorist attack before and after these measures is statistically unchanged.
That your only comparison to the TSA search is a prison strip search should give you pause. Whether it's better or not the very fact that you choose boot camp and prison admission is an admission that this is something that should not be happening as a matter of course to non-criminal, non-military people.
Please stop being an apologist.
Telemetry is not all bad
Straw man. No-one claims it is 'all' bad. And if it were opt-in like so many 'would you like to send anonymised data so we can improve product X' then there would be no outcry. It's the fact that not only is it not opt-in, it's a constant effort to remain opt-out.
has publicly stated that any telemetry data they may collect is anonymized
Corporations make statements all the time. Some are even true when they make them. A change of 'direction' and whatever promise or guarantee that was made may change. Without notice. Given that Microsoft has a history of 'changing direction', dropping things they promised or doing things they said they wouldn't I have no idea why you'd even consider this statement with anything other than suspicion. But let's assume a neutral stance. Microsoft claims no foul. Where's the proof? Where's the independent audit? Where's the option to say 'no thanks?'.
The burden of proof is not on those saying that there is a risk of foul play or even just negligence. The burden is on those giving the guarantee that this data (of ours) is safe with them and will be used only for good.
either prove or disprove any accusation
No problem. I look forward to your proof that the collection of my data has no negative impact for me, now or in the future. That's the direction the burden points. It's not on me to prove foul play or negligence. In the absence of proof, I would like to choose not to trust my data to someone. Being unable to do that is a problem for some people, even if you have different priorities.
Until people realize that opinions and unsubstantiated accusations are just speeding up the decline of western society we are well and truly fucked
You are guilty of the very thing you are decrying. Clearly this isn't something that concerns you. Your inability to understand, on a nerd site no less, that this is of significant concern to a number of people is a symptom of the very fractiousness you accuse others of.
Please. Log. Eye.
pushing misleading or false information (e.g. Snopes).
Your use of the word 'pushing' makes it sound as though Snopes has an agenda that it is pursuing. I'd like to see some evidence to back up that assertion.
I've seen Snopes perform sloppy research. I've seen articles that were improved over time.
Snopes is no more authorative than Wikipedia, but both have the same thing going for them. They cite sources.
Snopes tells you what it did to reach the conclusion it has drawn. If those sources are incomplete, that's apparent. If information is from a source you consider biased, that's apparent. It raises the bar from the usual assertion and denial and that is invaluable.
Rather than criticising Snopes for not being perfect or unbiased, how about applauding the methodology? Encouraging people to demand sources and citations and then to check them, themselves is the only way to elevate conversation out of the 'he said/she said' nonsense of sensationalism.
There a many ways to shape perception by providing more information, rather than just restricting it. 'Letting it flow' is not an answer to information manipulation.
Criticism and analysis is, and whether Snopes has an agenda or is simply imperfect, they are at least attempting to provide both.
And all lean in the same direction, politically.
Yeah. Towards 'corporatism'. Everything else is spin.
50% after two years?
I'm not sure what you're using, but decent Li ion batteries should last about 1000 cycles before they hit 80%. At one charge per day that's over two and a half years.
I've got an iPhone 6+ that's probably nearly four years old. A previous owner had a 'typical' usage for about 2 years; mine has been 'light'. Probably charged once a day for most of that period and just now getting down to 83% (self reported).
In the US, which is a lot more socially - upward and downward - mobile,
That's the belief, and the basis of the 'American Dream', but it's not borne out by statistics. The US has some of the lowest economic (and hence social) mobility of OECD nations.
It's hard not to view the continued insistence that the US rewards hard work as anything more than a self-serving narrative by those at the top. Just as food stamps and cheap housing help hold off the revolution, so too does the belief that if people don't rock the boat and play by the rules, they (or at least) their children can enjoy the fruits of society.
It's not just hunger that sparks revolution. Knowing that your children will be poor, no matter how hard you or they work, will do the trick even if it takes longer.
Please don't use 'they started it' as a justification when you are called on your own behaviour. Either your behaviour is bad, or it isn't.
No one is perfect, but if you can't say 'fair cop' when called out, then it makes it hard to extricate the rest of your point. Agreement becomes a tacit acceptance of the behaviour, even with caveats and exceptions.
For all intents and purposes, all of those are public forums.
Not by a legal, nor constitutional definition.
the only way to protect that culture by regulating what those companies are allowed to do with their privately-funded public forums.
Hollywood/large-media-corporations also 'mold entire communities and becomes part of the culture' - should they be treated the same way?
I think that regulation of essential services and utilities in areas where monopolies either form naturally or where competition reduces quality of service is useful and desirable. I'm not convinced that the popularity of these services makes them either essential or monopolies.
The regulation of telecommunication companies would be better compared to ISPs, not services that are built on top of neutral utilities.
Caveat, I'm not from the US and do not use Facebook or much social media.
By that logic, there are no public fora anywhere on the internet
Largely correct.
Your constitution applies only to the actions of the government, not private individuals.
situations where private property is also a publicly accessible areas for the public to get together doesn't get treated the same way that a private office building would where there's only specifically authorized people allowed to come and go.
You are incorrect.
Please provide citations to support your position. Google has any number of links to articles, summaries and commentary that all say the same thing - the constitutional protection for speech applies to the government, not private individuals.
Here's one.
You may also want to take a look at the Wiki article on forums.
You may be confusing a state granting additional rights or protection of free speech with those protected by the constitution. See Pruneyard Shopping Center vs Robins. I would strongly recommend reading the summary at the bottom of the article which includes reactions by other states, test cases and judicial commentary.
I'm just curious, was the money from Ajit Pai worth losing what little self-respect you might have had?
You may have a touch of the Dunning-Kruger going on. Might want to reign in the insults while you get that sorted.
Apple?
You mean the power supply where you can remove the mains connector to reveal that it connects via a IEC 60320 C7/'figure 8' socket, allowing a short cable to be installed moving the 'wart' to the middle of the length like you want? It's been a while since I checked and may be recalling incorrectly, but I thought that while Apple sold a cable with a moulded connector that fit in the socket and merged with the 'wart', that the socket itself was standard and you could use any suitable cable.
Frankly, these are some of the best designs I've seen. Most of the bulk is away from the mains connection, so it doesn't interfere with other plugs and you can switch between wall-wart and cable-wart.
Except that a good chunk of these are a plastic shell with some potted electronics inside without anything resembling attention to heat transfer or air cooling.
I realise that this brings the cost down and that manufacturers would prefer to go with a standard case regardless of what is going inside it, and that people who'd pay a little extra for a smaller overall package with decent thermal design are too small a market to address ...
So yes. It's about cooling. Inefficient, 'good enough' but most importantly - cheap.
I recall Larry Niven had wireheads in his 'Known Space' novels from the 70s.
You might want to look at uMatrix (link for Chrome version). It does some of what you want (site specific handling of calls to different resources with a default that blocks external resources), but I don't think it allows you to substitute your own code.
Probably my 'if you had to use just one ...' extension.
I'd argue that if someone plays devil's advocate and doesn't announce it, then they are taking advantage of one of the social niceties that help smooth communication - the trust that people are being genuine when they represent or argue an opinion. If someone is attempting to examine a position that they don't feel strongly, that should be clear from their manner, argument and response. If they present an appearance of belief that is different from what they actually hold, whether for the purpose of Socratic education or trolling, then they are exploiting that trust. To the degree that this erodes and degrades social interaction, then I'm not sure that there's much difference between a dishonest DA and troll.
Looking at the original meaning (pulling a baited hook through the water, esp. multiple lines or hooks) I'd distinguish a troll as someone who is looking for any reaction, and someone who is playing 'devil's advocate' is someone looking for a specific reaction or interaction.
This isn't perfect. Some of my favourite trolls have been very specific (the chiro posts by DrBob(?), for eg) and someone who just likes to argue and uses devil's advocate as a beard cross over, IMHO.
I like that Slashdot caps both positive and negative moderation. No-one can be modded below -1, nor above +5. Because of that, and by limiting the moderation any one mod can do, you will still see posts at all levels of moderation rather than a few posts attracting the majority of attention (good or bad).
Social media reinforces homogeneity. Part of it is the echo chamber effect, partly because it is so easy to find people based on your opinions and interests.
When you are 'forced' to interact with neighbours, colleagues etc. even with location and social strata providing some conformity, there's still a greater need to accomodate differences of opinion and even belief. At the same time, being accepted and knowing that you 'belong' even if you don't have exactly the same beliefs and opinions means that there's less pressure to conform.
Finding and knowing your role in a community is a powerful drive. Communication technology has taken our drive to belong and exaggerated it into something unhealthy.
Compromise is no longer as necessary. People are unpractised at it and it takes work to overcome our 'us and them' drive. Easier to simply find a place of like minded people and not deal with 'other'. Lather, rinse, repeat.