Well, then high-capability people won't bother pushing themselves to do much if they have to redistribute their earnings such that they make the same low wage. Why be a dr when a janitor makes just as much? This was tried in the soviet union and the result was a stagnant economy and empty shelves. Automation increases the pressure for sure, but at some point, someone will have to be maintaining, building, and designing these machines. These people will resent being treated this way and will use their control over the machines to gain power. Membership in the CPSU was how this manifested in the USSR. It bestowed extreme privilege (access to 'registered' rubles, ie currency that had actual international value, and 'closed' stores, which offered the best homes/cars/food), and most importantly, access to influencing policy.
The kardashians banked on fame and won. This has more to do with human behavior than ideology. Most people are idiots who place beauty on a pedestal and worship it, even if it's manufactured (search for pics of them without makeup). You're right about the social connections, but your solution would reenforce this as you would remove the only other path to success: earning wealth and getting to keep it in spite of those at the top.
1. I don't know what to tell you, but scrolling is laggy and choppy compared with 2003. This affects all the 2013/2016 office applications. 2. The pics above show differently. 3. The pics above show differently.
I am talking about the real client application, not OWA.
'Extreme' and 'moderate' are based on relative point of view. I suppose you'd be right if the people feeling forced to leave were radically left wing. Why didn't you just call them nazis and be done with it?
...where the culture clash between the remorseless competition of the US tech industry and the locals' respect for tradition and deference to established interests is especially stark.
Bias much?
Uber is playing fast and dirty, but 'deference to established interests' is hardly any better, esp when they're just using the state to back their own anti-competitive shenanigans.
yeah really.. I've never seen such a slow GUI on an MS product before. Whatever GUI widget they're grafting over win32 runs like a dog even on 4ghz cpus and powerful gpus. 1. Scrolling is choppy an interactions have visible latency. 2. There's too much white space. 3. The layout is nearly impossible to memorize. What's worse is that it's obviously a kludge in progress: some of the dialogs that haven't been grafted yet hark back to the win32/mfc days, and ironically, they're still nice and quick.
I don't want my desktop applications to behave like tablet apps. I want full functionality, no wasted space, and lightning fast interfaces. There's no excuse for not having that last one on modern machines.
I've half considered moving (back) to pegasus mail for personal use on windows. http://www.pmail.com/
The motivation was exactly the same, yes: to silence criticism of their viewpoints.
As in 'motivation', not as in 'method.' Both situations are examples of censorship because the intent was to silence opposition. Whether this or that group's methods are moral or legal is immaterial. It's still censorship. Speaking of 'forcing opinion', censorship is probably about as close as most can get to it. After all, the purpose of censorship is to control the narratives that shape opinion.
The terms 'trolling' and 'shitposting' are rampantly abused. Even around here, 'troll' is used to downmod people with different opinions regardless of merit. The real meaning of 'troll' implies intent to disrupt, but when used like this, it becomes ad hominem. Speaking of that, can you discuss without name calling?
You're just arguing from complexity while building strawman arguments about what I said. I did NOT say that all law should be simple. I said it needs to be understandable by those who are expected to follow it. I also said that needless complexity can be used as a tool to oppress and that automated AI interpretation of such law might accelerate the process (note the topic "Will advanced AI spell the end of lawyers?").
The rest? Well, you're just calling me names in between some kind of left wing rant.
It's obvious that Bay grafted Megan Fox's character into the story to be titillating to male audiences and 'empowering' to female ones: ie a feminist view of what men 'only' want and what women 'should' want (it backfired however, there's no pleasing feminists). In the opening scenes, it's clear she knows cars and understands tech while Spike/Sam can barely handle the car he just bought. Throughout the movie, he's relegated to clueless idiot status. Even when he's entrusted with important tasks, the implication is that he's incompetent without her. This contrasts with the character from the original cartoon series who, at various points, was entrusted with critical tasks and challenges, no privilege checking needed.
It is obvious Marvel grafted a female thor into the storyline for the new movie. There was no reason to retcon sex. There are plenty of female characters in the Marvel universe that stand on their own. These kinds of situations are why feminists are often accused of not wanting equality of any sort, but total cultural and legal dominance over men. In the movie, it's obvious Odin was made out to be the metaphor for the evils of 'patriarchy', not just a neutral male authority figure. The newer Thor comics make jabs at gamergate and ramble typical feminist mantras. In this context, it is very clear the new Thor movie was a case of grafted politics and not an honest attempt at building a new character or adding an unexpected plot twist to an old story.
As far as the other movies go, watch them. Watch the character interactions in the new star wars closely. She's right, Solo's an old, bumbling idiot, even with his own ship that he's flown for decades. She goes from drifter to a lightsaber pro within minutes after receiving luke's saber, learns to control her mind powers along the way without any guidance, and defeats the movie's nemesis, but of course not before Solo is senselessly killed off so she can take his place (she don't need no man to protect her, but a wookie is ok I guess). In contrast, force or not, Luke still had to train, both with the saber and mind-disciplines for many years. By the time she meets him at the end, there's little point in continuing the story because she's already 90% on the way to being a jedi. This plot clearly abused the story line for the sake of political correctness.
Yes I did, within the context of this particular topic: "Will advanced AI spell the end of lawyers" which is NOT the current reality. Of course, you chose to ignore that.
How about the patriot act? Let me guess, 'easily' understood and/or not 'oppressive'? Right? Lets argue over semantics some more instead of the topic itself.
Of course, siteops can do what they like with their own sites, but shutting down their comments when they're called out by readers send a message that they don't want their views challenged. Despite the usual sanctimonious statements made after such action, this is not a position of strength, it's one of weakness (butthurt). At that point such people have zero credibility. A good example would be creationists abusing the youtube copyright arbitration system a few years ago to get critical replies taken down. This is a favorite tactic of anyone, really, who wants to broadcast a strong opinion that lacks rational backing and doesn't want its holes exposed ("shut him up! facts trigger me!").
Except reality was a guy handing a script to a woman who also works in the movie industry and asking her opinion - just like what happens with many scripts only this time you somehow think the woman was pushing a feminist agenda instead of doing a job.
Uhh. yeah, that's kinda the definition of 'doing her job' in this particular case. In any movie made in the last 15 years or so, the men are either made into insecure, bumbling fools, killed off, or used as emotional tampons for the new heroines to take their places (eg: Transformers series, mad max:fr, Star Wars:TFA, Thor). Of course, unlike the strong male character leads of the past, this isn't considered sexist by feminists. When this bullshit is pointed out, feminists 'justify' their own sexism by spewing some neo-marxist claptrap about it being impossible for (their self-described) victim class to discriminate. How convenient.
Deliberate pretend-stupidity? That's what's in these movies: A deliberate attempt to propagate a social agenda at the expense of the story. With some of these movies, the grafting is so obvious it's painful to watch. What feminists don't understand (or just won't acknowledge out of insecurity and/or sense of entitlement) is that true empowerment doesn't come from forcing others to give you their stuff/attention. It comes from achieving on one's own. In the case of entertainment, the women in hollywood should come up with some new female characters with their own stories.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because moving heavy industry out into space one day isn't something that would benefit the world as a whole..
astr vs cosm: Both are apt roots for the word.
User's sovereignty over their systems?
Well, then high-capability people won't bother pushing themselves to do much if they have to redistribute their earnings such that they make the same low wage. Why be a dr when a janitor makes just as much? This was tried in the soviet union and the result was a stagnant economy and empty shelves. Automation increases the pressure for sure, but at some point, someone will have to be maintaining, building, and designing these machines. These people will resent being treated this way and will use their control over the machines to gain power. Membership in the CPSU was how this manifested in the USSR. It bestowed extreme privilege (access to 'registered' rubles, ie currency that had actual international value, and 'closed' stores, which offered the best homes/cars/food), and most importantly, access to influencing policy.
The kardashians banked on fame and won. This has more to do with human behavior than ideology. Most people are idiots who place beauty on a pedestal and worship it, even if it's manufactured (search for pics of them without makeup). You're right about the social connections, but your solution would reenforce this as you would remove the only other path to success: earning wealth and getting to keep it in spite of those at the top.
Really? Ok
Here's outlook 2003.
http://www.computerfix.org/for...
Here's outlook 2016.
http://windowsitpro.com/site-f...
Minus the luna color scheme, I much prefer 2003.
1. I don't know what to tell you, but scrolling is laggy and choppy compared with 2003. This affects all the 2013/2016 office applications.
2. The pics above show differently.
3. The pics above show differently.
I am talking about the real client application, not OWA.
Ok, so switchblades are useless. Why have a stupid law regulating them?
No, that's only what leftists want you to think.
'Extreme' and 'moderate' are based on relative point of view. I suppose you'd be right if the people feeling forced to leave were radically left wing. Why didn't you just call them nazis and be done with it?
I'd also like to know how they plan to override government authority to make such a place free.
Why bother moving to NH then? The point was to build a majority and change policy with elections.
Yeah, because having monopolies on shit jobs that drive up costs and drive down QOS makes everything better?
No. Trump would not call competition 'remorseless.'
I was with you until the last paragraph. If money was constantly redistributed 'equally', then we'd all just be equally poor.
...where the culture clash between the remorseless competition of the US tech industry and the locals' respect for tradition and deference to established interests is especially stark.
Bias much?
Uber is playing fast and dirty, but 'deference to established interests' is hardly any better, esp when they're just using the state to back their own anti-competitive shenanigans.
yeah really.. I've never seen such a slow GUI on an MS product before. Whatever GUI widget they're grafting over win32 runs like a dog even on 4ghz cpus and powerful gpus.
1. Scrolling is choppy an interactions have visible latency.
2. There's too much white space.
3. The layout is nearly impossible to memorize. What's worse is that it's obviously a kludge in progress: some of the dialogs that haven't been grafted yet hark back to the win32/mfc days, and ironically, they're still nice and quick.
I don't want my desktop applications to behave like tablet apps. I want full functionality, no wasted space, and lightning fast interfaces. There's no excuse for not having that last one on modern machines.
I've half considered moving (back) to pegasus mail for personal use on windows.
http://www.pmail.com/
That only leaves the gaping hole that is the browser's enabled javascript engine..
I'll quote myself just to be sure you read it.
The motivation was exactly the same, yes: to silence criticism of their viewpoints.
As in 'motivation', not as in 'method.' Both situations are examples of censorship because the intent was to silence opposition. Whether this or that group's methods are moral or legal is immaterial. It's still censorship. Speaking of 'forcing opinion', censorship is probably about as close as most can get to it. After all, the purpose of censorship is to control the narratives that shape opinion.
The terms 'trolling' and 'shitposting' are rampantly abused. Even around here, 'troll' is used to downmod people with different opinions regardless of merit. The real meaning of 'troll' implies intent to disrupt, but when used like this, it becomes ad hominem. Speaking of that, can you discuss without name calling?
You're just arguing from complexity while building strawman arguments about what I said. I did NOT say that all law should be simple. I said it needs to be understandable by those who are expected to follow it. I also said that needless complexity can be used as a tool to oppress and that automated AI interpretation of such law might accelerate the process (note the topic "Will advanced AI spell the end of lawyers?").
The rest? Well, you're just calling me names in between some kind of left wing rant.
Yeah, Brazilian here.
Good to know there's no bias in your post then.
I guess.. if you buy into the required newspeak premises.
The motivation was exactly the same, yes: to silence criticism of their viewpoints.
It's obvious that Bay grafted Megan Fox's character into the story to be titillating to male audiences and 'empowering' to female ones: ie a feminist view of what men 'only' want and what women 'should' want (it backfired however, there's no pleasing feminists). In the opening scenes, it's clear she knows cars and understands tech while Spike/Sam can barely handle the car he just bought. Throughout the movie, he's relegated to clueless idiot status. Even when he's entrusted with important tasks, the implication is that he's incompetent without her. This contrasts with the character from the original cartoon series who, at various points, was entrusted with critical tasks and challenges, no privilege checking needed.
It is obvious Marvel grafted a female thor into the storyline for the new movie. There was no reason to retcon sex. There are plenty of female characters in the Marvel universe that stand on their own. These kinds of situations are why feminists are often accused of not wanting equality of any sort, but total cultural and legal dominance over men. In the movie, it's obvious Odin was made out to be the metaphor for the evils of 'patriarchy', not just a neutral male authority figure. The newer Thor comics make jabs at gamergate and ramble typical feminist mantras. In this context, it is very clear the new Thor movie was a case of grafted politics and not an honest attempt at building a new character or adding an unexpected plot twist to an old story.
reaxxion isn't exactly unbiased, but the comics' content speaks for itself.
http://www.reaxxion.com/wp-con...
http://www.reaxxion.com/wp-con...
http://www.reaxxion.com/wp-con...
(warning: spoilers follow)
As far as the other movies go, watch them. Watch the character interactions in the new star wars closely. She's right, Solo's an old, bumbling idiot, even with his own ship that he's flown for decades. She goes from drifter to a lightsaber pro within minutes after receiving luke's saber, learns to control her mind powers along the way without any guidance, and defeats the movie's nemesis, but of course not before Solo is senselessly killed off so she can take his place (she don't need no man to protect her, but a wookie is ok I guess). In contrast, force or not, Luke still had to train, both with the saber and mind-disciplines for many years. By the time she meets him at the end, there's little point in continuing the story because she's already 90% on the way to being a jedi. This plot clearly abused the story line for the sake of political correctness.
Yes I did, within the context of this particular topic: "Will advanced AI spell the end of lawyers" which is NOT the current reality. Of course, you chose to ignore that.
How about the patriot act? Let me guess, 'easily' understood and/or not 'oppressive'? Right? Lets argue over semantics some more instead of the topic itself.
Of course, siteops can do what they like with their own sites, but shutting down their comments when they're called out by readers send a message that they don't want their views challenged. Despite the usual sanctimonious statements made after such action, this is not a position of strength, it's one of weakness (butthurt). At that point such people have zero credibility. A good example would be creationists abusing the youtube copyright arbitration system a few years ago to get critical replies taken down. This is a favorite tactic of anyone, really, who wants to broadcast a strong opinion that lacks rational backing and doesn't want its holes exposed ("shut him up! facts trigger me!").
Yeah because anything that clashes with left wing narratives is 'regressive.'
Except reality was a guy handing a script to a woman who also works in the movie industry and asking her opinion - just like what happens with many scripts only this time you somehow think the woman was pushing a feminist agenda instead of doing a job.
Uhh. yeah, that's kinda the definition of 'doing her job' in this particular case. In any movie made in the last 15 years or so, the men are either made into insecure, bumbling fools, killed off, or used as emotional tampons for the new heroines to take their places (eg: Transformers series, mad max:fr, Star Wars:TFA, Thor). Of course, unlike the strong male character leads of the past, this isn't considered sexist by feminists. When this bullshit is pointed out, feminists 'justify' their own sexism by spewing some neo-marxist claptrap about it being impossible for (their self-described) victim class to discriminate. How convenient.
Deliberate pretend-stupidity? That's what's in these movies: A deliberate attempt to propagate a social agenda at the expense of the story. With some of these movies, the grafting is so obvious it's painful to watch. What feminists don't understand (or just won't acknowledge out of insecurity and/or sense of entitlement) is that true empowerment doesn't come from forcing others to give you their stuff/attention. It comes from achieving on one's own. In the case of entertainment, the women in hollywood should come up with some new female characters with their own stories.