Oh? Back when I rented apartments, I could move pretty freely. Now that I own a house, I'd have to sell it in order to move. It's a great house for my purposes, but I was freer without it.
If mine breaks, I can replace it without breaking the budget. Therefore, I can effectively self-insure, and that's almost always cheaper than buying insurance.
Why are so many people so insistent on a user-removable battery? Why would I want to remove it? If it's to extend use between charges, I can get an external battery that works fine. (My son has one.) If the battery lasts three years before it needs replacement, why would I worry about the cost of having it replaced?
I've found no problems with auto-paying loans. You may want to investigate the vendors you use for that. This eliminates problems with missing a payment or dealing with ongoing billing.
If you've got the money to buy it with cash, you've got the cash to pay off a 0% loan.
So, I'm paying off a $30K car in four years with a 0% loan, which at 6% rate of return means I'm making about $4K.
Worth in what sense? The resale value on my car is doubtless less than what I owe on it (I'm not paying a 0% loan off faster than I have to), but this is a short-lived condition compared to the expected life of the car. In the meantime, it works just fine, and I have no intention of reselling it any time soon. The only problem is the low probability that the car will be totaled, and I can cover the gap between replacement and insurance.
In the meantime, I get the features I want, which don't exist on older cars.
My auto insurance premiums are based on my car, my area, and my record as a good driver. Auto insurance is a competitive market, and charging higher rates to someone for something unrelated to driving safety loses money. My health insurance is a group policy. If it wasn't, I suppose they could find something significant to my health from my postings, but that's unlikely to change the rates, which in many cases are set at group levels. I've already been denied life insurance for health reasons (depression), no internet required. If the insurance company wants to know something, they ask about it, and if they find out you've lied they don't pay out. I don't see what the downside is in showing me ads for things I'm interested in, although I haven't seen that work well yet. Selling appropriate meds to appropriate people does not strike me as being a catastrophe.
The story I heard is that the Indians sold Manhattan for some beads, mirrors, etc., because they weren't from Manhattan, just hunting there. Hey, free beads!
Fake news is crap someone made up, and non-fake news is stuff someone had a good reason to think true, preferably with citations. (Mainstream media rarely makes actual false statements, and typically retracts them when they do. They can deceive in all sorts of other ways.)
Galileo's reports were real news. Misleading posts are real news, as long as reasonably factual. Reporting about apparently miraculous events is real news. An article that says wonderful things happen by chance is neither real nor fake news, as it's opinion. This isn't rocket surgery, guys.
The only reason to attempt to blur the line between real news and fake news would be if one wanted to push fake news.
Which facts, and from which sources? All news sources are biased, since they can't possibly supply all the verified facts in the world, and have to make a selection.
The only reason not to argue that fascists aren't leftists to you is that you will disregard anything that doesn't fit your warped beliefs. Learn some goddam history and political science.
Asimov once said that the people who thought the world was flat were wrong, and that the people who thought the world was a sphere were wrong, but those who thought they were equally wrong were wronger than both of those put together.
There is a real, actual, difference between stories that one gets from elsewhere and promulgates in a belief that the stories are true, and stories that one makes up because they'd be convenient if believed. The first process is hardly perfect, and will put forth false stories from time to time, but it cares about the truth.
Sure, but that's not what Facebook is doing here. They're doing their best to remove fake news. If that hurts the right more than the left, screw the right.
The right wing also included militarist Japan and Nazi Germany, which apparently doesn't fit into your right==good attitude.
Theocrats have always been in favor of subjugating and/or killing people because of their religion. Monarchists have always been in favor of subjugating and/or killing people because of their country. Libertarians aren't really right-wing as a class. Those in favor of free markets have tended to support subjugation and killing of people in other countries that threatened their profits.
There are very few leftists in the US who actually want to kill millions of people because of their ancestry.
Ah, another historical illiterate who thinks Nazis were in some sense leftist. The Soviet Union would a reasonable left-wing equivalent.
Hitler talked about a thousand-year Reich. Communists talked about the withering away of the state. Hitler was nationalist. Communists were classist. Hitler cozied up to private enterprise, which Communists discouraged and often banned it (although typically not an individual working for himself or herself; the line that was not to be crossed was private citizens having employees). Hitler had race enemies, and Communists had class enemies. Hitler was supported by right-wing Germans, and Stalin wasn't popular among the Russian right wing (when it still existed).
The National Socialists did have socialists until Hitler had them murdered. If you've read Mein Kampf, you might remember his discussion of what propaganda is, and how you never change it, even when you realize some of it's wrong.
Learn something about European conservatives and Socialists sometime.
Did you actually follow Snopes during the campaign? They were calling all sorts of stories false, about both Clinton and Trump. As one who was following Snopes at the time, I never saw any declaration of support for Clinton, and hence there was no open support.
As a leftist, who knows other leftists, you're lying. There are leftists who participate in some of those activities, but considering that what leftists do is precisely like accusing the entire right wing of being Nazis and white supremacists.
You know, you fools that keep comparing Trump to Hitler or the "right" to nazi's
Actually, Hitler was a lot more competent than Trump, and the current US is in a lot better shape to resist fascists than Weimar Germany. Too much of the US right wing is sympathetic to Nazis, but certainly not all of it.
The correct comparison is hardcore Trump supporters to Hitler supporters. They're disaffected, have an entitlement complex, are frequently racist, and generally don't give a crap about reality or other people. They're happy to listen to pleasant lies in preference to harsh truths.
Trump is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and has the nuclear launch codes. He could start a world war, and many more than 50 million people would die.
you have Wikileaks, which has a 100% proven record
Where's the proof? Many of Wikileaks' announcements are from a guy who fled Sweden and then holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid facing a criminal charge, then lied about it and feigned fear of the US. I don't consider him a reliable source.
Meanwhile, the DNC actually hacked an election
Which election would that be? The nominating process was not neutral, but why should it be? That's how you get candidates like Trump.
I never have understood this obsession with user-replaceable batteries. The battery in my 5S, which I bought when it came out, is slowly losing its capacity. Even if I go with Apple, $80 over more than three years isn't much.
Earlier this summer, I wound up eating at Applebee's. My dinner was delicious and not the usual restaurant fare, which surprised me, as I never expected that from Applebee's. I don't know if the chain changed or that one got the go-ahead to have good food, but it's my anecdote and I'm sticking to it.
Slashdot Mirror
All right, I'll move off your lawn. I'll find someone who doesn't think their personal preferences are what the entire world should do.
Oh? Back when I rented apartments, I could move pretty freely. Now that I own a house, I'd have to sell it in order to move. It's a great house for my purposes, but I was freer without it.
If mine breaks, I can replace it without breaking the budget. Therefore, I can effectively self-insure, and that's almost always cheaper than buying insurance.
Why are so many people so insistent on a user-removable battery? Why would I want to remove it? If it's to extend use between charges, I can get an external battery that works fine. (My son has one.) If the battery lasts three years before it needs replacement, why would I worry about the cost of having it replaced?
I've found no problems with auto-paying loans. You may want to investigate the vendors you use for that. This eliminates problems with missing a payment or dealing with ongoing billing.
If you've got the money to buy it with cash, you've got the cash to pay off a 0% loan.
So, I'm paying off a $30K car in four years with a 0% loan, which at 6% rate of return means I'm making about $4K.
Worth in what sense? The resale value on my car is doubtless less than what I owe on it (I'm not paying a 0% loan off faster than I have to), but this is a short-lived condition compared to the expected life of the car. In the meantime, it works just fine, and I have no intention of reselling it any time soon. The only problem is the low probability that the car will be totaled, and I can cover the gap between replacement and insurance.
In the meantime, I get the features I want, which don't exist on older cars.
My auto insurance premiums are based on my car, my area, and my record as a good driver. Auto insurance is a competitive market, and charging higher rates to someone for something unrelated to driving safety loses money. My health insurance is a group policy. If it wasn't, I suppose they could find something significant to my health from my postings, but that's unlikely to change the rates, which in many cases are set at group levels. I've already been denied life insurance for health reasons (depression), no internet required. If the insurance company wants to know something, they ask about it, and if they find out you've lied they don't pay out. I don't see what the downside is in showing me ads for things I'm interested in, although I haven't seen that work well yet. Selling appropriate meds to appropriate people does not strike me as being a catastrophe.
The story I heard is that the Indians sold Manhattan for some beads, mirrors, etc., because they weren't from Manhattan, just hunting there. Hey, free beads!
Fake news is crap someone made up, and non-fake news is stuff someone had a good reason to think true, preferably with citations. (Mainstream media rarely makes actual false statements, and typically retracts them when they do. They can deceive in all sorts of other ways.)
Galileo's reports were real news. Misleading posts are real news, as long as reasonably factual. Reporting about apparently miraculous events is real news. An article that says wonderful things happen by chance is neither real nor fake news, as it's opinion. This isn't rocket surgery, guys.
The only reason to attempt to blur the line between real news and fake news would be if one wanted to push fake news.
Which facts, and from which sources? All news sources are biased, since they can't possibly supply all the verified facts in the world, and have to make a selection.
The only reason not to argue that fascists aren't leftists to you is that you will disregard anything that doesn't fit your warped beliefs. Learn some goddam history and political science.
You need to meet some real Democrats.
Asimov once said that the people who thought the world was flat were wrong, and that the people who thought the world was a sphere were wrong, but those who thought they were equally wrong were wronger than both of those put together.
There is a real, actual, difference between stories that one gets from elsewhere and promulgates in a belief that the stories are true, and stories that one makes up because they'd be convenient if believed. The first process is hardly perfect, and will put forth false stories from time to time, but it cares about the truth.
Sure, but that's not what Facebook is doing here. They're doing their best to remove fake news. If that hurts the right more than the left, screw the right.
The right wing also included militarist Japan and Nazi Germany, which apparently doesn't fit into your right==good attitude.
Theocrats have always been in favor of subjugating and/or killing people because of their religion. Monarchists have always been in favor of subjugating and/or killing people because of their country. Libertarians aren't really right-wing as a class. Those in favor of free markets have tended to support subjugation and killing of people in other countries that threatened their profits.
There are very few leftists in the US who actually want to kill millions of people because of their ancestry.
Ah, another historical illiterate who thinks Nazis were in some sense leftist. The Soviet Union would a reasonable left-wing equivalent.
Hitler talked about a thousand-year Reich. Communists talked about the withering away of the state. Hitler was nationalist. Communists were classist. Hitler cozied up to private enterprise, which Communists discouraged and often banned it (although typically not an individual working for himself or herself; the line that was not to be crossed was private citizens having employees). Hitler had race enemies, and Communists had class enemies. Hitler was supported by right-wing Germans, and Stalin wasn't popular among the Russian right wing (when it still existed).
The National Socialists did have socialists until Hitler had them murdered. If you've read Mein Kampf, you might remember his discussion of what propaganda is, and how you never change it, even when you realize some of it's wrong.
Learn something about European conservatives and Socialists sometime.
It looked to me like Sanders might qualify as a centrist in Western Europe. (I supported him, and considered his platform to be a darn good start.)
Did you actually follow Snopes during the campaign? They were calling all sorts of stories false, about both Clinton and Trump. As one who was following Snopes at the time, I never saw any declaration of support for Clinton, and hence there was no open support.
As a leftist, who knows other leftists, you're lying. There are leftists who participate in some of those activities, but considering that what leftists do is precisely like accusing the entire right wing of being Nazis and white supremacists.
Members of the American Nazi Party? I'll call anyone who Sieg Heil's other than in parody or carries a Nazi flag a Nazi. Close enough.
Actually, Hitler was a lot more competent than Trump, and the current US is in a lot better shape to resist fascists than Weimar Germany. Too much of the US right wing is sympathetic to Nazis, but certainly not all of it.
The correct comparison is hardcore Trump supporters to Hitler supporters. They're disaffected, have an entitlement complex, are frequently racist, and generally don't give a crap about reality or other people. They're happy to listen to pleasant lies in preference to harsh truths.
Trump is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and has the nuclear launch codes. He could start a world war, and many more than 50 million people would die.
Where's the proof? Many of Wikileaks' announcements are from a guy who fled Sweden and then holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid facing a criminal charge, then lied about it and feigned fear of the US. I don't consider him a reliable source.
Which election would that be? The nominating process was not neutral, but why should it be? That's how you get candidates like Trump.
I never have understood this obsession with user-replaceable batteries. The battery in my 5S, which I bought when it came out, is slowly losing its capacity. Even if I go with Apple, $80 over more than three years isn't much.
iPhone sales remain very strong, and they sure aren't status symbols, nor were they a passing fad. People like them.
Earlier this summer, I wound up eating at Applebee's. My dinner was delicious and not the usual restaurant fare, which surprised me, as I never expected that from Applebee's. I don't know if the chain changed or that one got the go-ahead to have good food, but it's my anecdote and I'm sticking to it.