I'm suggesting that any notion of what things "should" be is entirely irrelevant to what happens in the real world.
Most of us affect the real world to a small extent, and many of us try to give the world a push to what it should be according to us. It's very relevant.
Right, they should make sure their code works on all supported platforms. Is Edge on 10 S worth supporting, when anyone running a real OS can get Chrome or Firefox? If this is a commercial website of some sort, how much money would it take to make it work on 10 S and how much money would it bring in? If it's a hobby site, why should I bust my butt because some people buy broken OSes from Microsoft? Let them learn something.
Why should I read something specifically so that a guy I don't know can put food on his table? I read for entertainment, information, instruction, inspiration, and probably some other words beginning with vowels. If someone writes something I like, I'm happy to let that person have some of my money or eyeball time.
It's connected to Calvinism, I think. One of the ideas behind Calvinism is that the elect go to Heaven, and are blessed with success on Earth, while everyone else has less success and goes to Hell. This means that you keep yourself busy doing things to you can tell yourself that you're successful and must be one of the elect going to Heaven. The lazy bums are obviously not of the elect, are going to Hell, and are therefore inferior to you (you're not going to Hell, are you?).
It strikes me as not being all that similar to what that Jesus guy said. It also strikes me as a way to feel smug and superior and not help anyone less successful than you. Arguably, it played a part in the development of European civilization, but it's also inflicted more harm on the world than most religious ideas.
Fascism and Nazism both aimed at a planned economy
You call those economies planned? The British and (to a lesser extent) the US had much more planning in their wartime economies, even after Todt and Speer rationalized the Nazi economy in 1943-44.
Fascism and Nazism are a form of socialism
Not even close. If you're looking for right-wing socialism in the WWII era, look up the proposed Showa Restoration, proposed by right-wing Japanese nationalists, which would have nationalized pretty much everything.
So we're talking no convictions, no mental problems, and documented firearms competency at a minimum
Be really careful with the "no mental problems". I'm high-functioning ASD and have dysthymia (sort of chronic depression) myself. Why should my Second Amendment rights be infringed? Do you want people to avoid seeing mental health professionals out of fear that they won't be able to have guns? Is it preferable to have people with untreated mental illnesses owning guns?
There is certain software I am required to use. I use it. when I need to. However, this is the Real World, the one that gives me paychecks, and I don't use IE.
You are responsible for not sexually harassing (or worse) women. It's up to you to figure out how not to. You do need to make sure the woman doesn't feel intimidated into not objecting before assuming there's no objection.
And suddenly I'm accusing you of being in favor of harassment? You talked about delays in reporting it, but requiring a chaperone isn't about old cases of harassment. It's about a woman reporting it (correctly or maliciously) pretty much immediately. I'm also glad that your wife complained about harassment and got results, but it's rather beside the point.
Let me try to lay out what I'm thinking more plainly.
A few years ago, complaints of sexual harassment were typically ignored, except sometimes in business settings. If a celebrity harassed a woman, tough. We heard complaints about Bill Cosby before the big revelation. Who was harassing who in the movie business was known inside the business, and nothing was done. It took something extremely flagrant to hurt a politician (and Gary Hart telling reporters to follow him and leading them straight to his mistress wasn't really about harassment). A man who talked about harassing women who had a lot of very credible complaints against him was voted to be the Republican nominee for President, then elected. Pretty much the best a woman could hope for was not to get further harassed and not have her future career damaged.
I think we can agree that this was bad.
The reason women shut up about it until now is that publicly talking about it The reason we're seeing them complain about old harassment is that they feel less endangered in reporting it, and they feel like revealing it might have some practical effect. This has the disadvantage that it's really hard to verify a 10-year-old accusation, and very hard to react to it. A group of accusations makes a quite plausible case. This made some men nervous, I'd suspect the ones with the dirty consciences being more nervous in general.
As a reaction, some men started interacting with women only under restricted conditions. Clearly this isn't because some guy harassed someone back in '98. If she wants to bring that up, she will. This is about not being accused of harassment now. This is the current situation, and it isn't good for women (or men, for that matter) either.
The US sent troops to Vladivostok, IIRC, during the Russian Civil War. It had at least a small hand in the first collapse (arguably, two collapses in a year).
To be more specific, my available evidence (which is limited) suggests to me that Trump colluded with Russia. Part of this is meta-evidence, including people lying when they should have had no need to, which a court can't consider but I can.
Thank the GOP got in and got Gorsuch on the SCOTUS basically.
As opposed to a very moderate Obama nominee, who never even got a hearing? How would we have been worse off with Merrick Garland?
Not to mention she said 'the unborn person has no constitutional rights'.
Which constitutional rights would a fetus have? There are people claiming it has a right to live, but nobody has a Constitutional right to live, let alone be a parasite.
Why not put together a REAL bill that would lay out what Net Neutrality really meant?
Because it hasn't been necessary up until now. The FCC was enforcing NN since something like 2005, although in 2015 they had to change the legal basis. Now the FCC has voted to drop it, so if Congress wants NN Congress now has to do something.
A filibuster prevents things from getting voted on, and Schumer says that he can get it to a vote. Not everything in the Senate can be filibustered, even assuming the Republicans would bother.
You do realize that Republicans like illegal immigration, because it forces working class wages down, right? If someone lowered the boom on people illegally employing illegal immigrants, it would solve a lot of problems. The Republicans aren't about to do it.
There will be no bans on hate speech. In the US, "hate speech" is a matter of personal opinion, and will continue to be.
There aren't enough religious idiots who believe the crap about baking cakes that aren't already hidebound Republicans to make a difference.
If there's 49 Democrats and 50 Republicans, remember that the Vice-President effectively has a vote. He can cast a vote to make or break a tie (which means the only times his vote would decide anything).
Actually, the lack of NN would protect Netflix, Google, and Amazon. Those three can afford to toss some money at the ISPs, while the startup can't. The lack of NN prevents the little guy from trying to become the big guy.
Of course it's Congress's responsibility. They perfectly legally delegated some of their power to the FCC. They retain the ability to override the FCC at any time, and never have to defer to it. The responsible party was the FCC, in the absence of Congressional action. Now, Senator Schumer thinks the FCC made the wrong decision and is trying to get Congress to declare that. This is all perfectly legal and perfectly normal.
Slashdot Mirror
Having used it, I'm willing to believe there are millions of users. I do question whether they're happy.
Depends on whether your app will sell well to XBox One owners, I guess. Some will, some won't.
Windows 10 screwed up Minesweeper, and told me I could buy an ad-free version in the Windows Store.
Most of us affect the real world to a small extent, and many of us try to give the world a push to what it should be according to us. It's very relevant.
Right, they should make sure their code works on all supported platforms. Is Edge on 10 S worth supporting, when anyone running a real OS can get Chrome or Firefox? If this is a commercial website of some sort, how much money would it take to make it work on 10 S and how much money would it bring in? If it's a hobby site, why should I bust my butt because some people buy broken OSes from Microsoft? Let them learn something.
Why should I read something specifically so that a guy I don't know can put food on his table? I read for entertainment, information, instruction, inspiration, and probably some other words beginning with vowels. If someone writes something I like, I'm happy to let that person have some of my money or eyeball time.
It's connected to Calvinism, I think. One of the ideas behind Calvinism is that the elect go to Heaven, and are blessed with success on Earth, while everyone else has less success and goes to Hell. This means that you keep yourself busy doing things to you can tell yourself that you're successful and must be one of the elect going to Heaven. The lazy bums are obviously not of the elect, are going to Hell, and are therefore inferior to you (you're not going to Hell, are you?).
It strikes me as not being all that similar to what that Jesus guy said. It also strikes me as a way to feel smug and superior and not help anyone less successful than you. Arguably, it played a part in the development of European civilization, but it's also inflicted more harm on the world than most religious ideas.
The minimum wage was created with the intent that one person working full-time could support a family in a decent style.
I'm for social justice, but I prefer to play magic-using characters.
You call those economies planned? The British and (to a lesser extent) the US had much more planning in their wartime economies, even after Todt and Speer rationalized the Nazi economy in 1943-44.
Not even close. If you're looking for right-wing socialism in the WWII era, look up the proposed Showa Restoration, proposed by right-wing Japanese nationalists, which would have nationalized pretty much everything.
Be really careful with the "no mental problems". I'm high-functioning ASD and have dysthymia (sort of chronic depression) myself. Why should my Second Amendment rights be infringed? Do you want people to avoid seeing mental health professionals out of fear that they won't be able to have guns? Is it preferable to have people with untreated mental illnesses owning guns?
There is certain software I am required to use. I use it. when I need to. However, this is the Real World, the one that gives me paychecks, and I don't use IE.
You are responsible for not sexually harassing (or worse) women. It's up to you to figure out how not to. You do need to make sure the woman doesn't feel intimidated into not objecting before assuming there's no objection.
And suddenly I'm accusing you of being in favor of harassment? You talked about delays in reporting it, but requiring a chaperone isn't about old cases of harassment. It's about a woman reporting it (correctly or maliciously) pretty much immediately. I'm also glad that your wife complained about harassment and got results, but it's rather beside the point.
Let me try to lay out what I'm thinking more plainly.
A few years ago, complaints of sexual harassment were typically ignored, except sometimes in business settings. If a celebrity harassed a woman, tough. We heard complaints about Bill Cosby before the big revelation. Who was harassing who in the movie business was known inside the business, and nothing was done. It took something extremely flagrant to hurt a politician (and Gary Hart telling reporters to follow him and leading them straight to his mistress wasn't really about harassment). A man who talked about harassing women who had a lot of very credible complaints against him was voted to be the Republican nominee for President, then elected. Pretty much the best a woman could hope for was not to get further harassed and not have her future career damaged.
I think we can agree that this was bad.
The reason women shut up about it until now is that publicly talking about it The reason we're seeing them complain about old harassment is that they feel less endangered in reporting it, and they feel like revealing it might have some practical effect. This has the disadvantage that it's really hard to verify a 10-year-old accusation, and very hard to react to it. A group of accusations makes a quite plausible case. This made some men nervous, I'd suspect the ones with the dirty consciences being more nervous in general.
As a reaction, some men started interacting with women only under restricted conditions. Clearly this isn't because some guy harassed someone back in '98. If she wants to bring that up, she will. This is about not being accused of harassment now. This is the current situation, and it isn't good for women (or men, for that matter) either.
The US sent troops to Vladivostok, IIRC, during the Russian Civil War. It had at least a small hand in the first collapse (arguably, two collapses in a year).
To be more specific, my available evidence (which is limited) suggests to me that Trump colluded with Russia. Part of this is meta-evidence, including people lying when they should have had no need to, which a court can't consider but I can.
Actually, I'm not a shill. I annoy people for free.
As opposed to a very moderate Obama nominee, who never even got a hearing? How would we have been worse off with Merrick Garland?
Which constitutional rights would a fetus have? There are people claiming it has a right to live, but nobody has a Constitutional right to live, let alone be a parasite.
Because it hasn't been necessary up until now. The FCC was enforcing NN since something like 2005, although in 2015 they had to change the legal basis. Now the FCC has voted to drop it, so if Congress wants NN Congress now has to do something.
A filibuster prevents things from getting voted on, and Schumer says that he can get it to a vote. Not everything in the Senate can be filibustered, even assuming the Republicans would bother.
You do realize that Republicans like illegal immigration, because it forces working class wages down, right? If someone lowered the boom on people illegally employing illegal immigrants, it would solve a lot of problems. The Republicans aren't about to do it.
There will be no bans on hate speech. In the US, "hate speech" is a matter of personal opinion, and will continue to be.
There aren't enough religious idiots who believe the crap about baking cakes that aren't already hidebound Republicans to make a difference.
If there's 49 Democrats and 50 Republicans, remember that the Vice-President effectively has a vote. He can cast a vote to make or break a tie (which means the only times his vote would decide anything).
Actually, the lack of NN would protect Netflix, Google, and Amazon. Those three can afford to toss some money at the ISPs, while the startup can't. The lack of NN prevents the little guy from trying to become the big guy.
Of course it's Congress's responsibility. They perfectly legally delegated some of their power to the FCC. They retain the ability to override the FCC at any time, and never have to defer to it. The responsible party was the FCC, in the absence of Congressional action. Now, Senator Schumer thinks the FCC made the wrong decision and is trying to get Congress to declare that. This is all perfectly legal and perfectly normal.
Alternately, the US populace might be really frightened by a nuclear war breaking out. We don't have to fight North Korea. We can leave NK for China.