1) No substantive point here. Nothing but insults
2) You have no idea who I am, even though I, unlike you, have the courage to post without the mask of an AC.
3) I enjoy debating with trolls. You won't win against me, and you'll just continue to show that you're incapable of arguing an well-thought point.
First of all, the link you provided is an opinion piece. I checked that when I read "There is no medical justification for any abortion, period" in the text of the piece.
At no point in the piece you linked to does it describe anything like "they birth the baby as normal and then jam a spike through its brain to kill it".
For the record, I'm both pro-life and pro-choice. I believe that in most cases, abortion is morally wrong, but I also don't believe it's my place to tell other people what to do when it comes to doing something that has been deemed legal.
Absolute fallacy. What you should be asking for is NOT ALLOWING DONATIONS FROM THE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. Get politicians out of the business of voting to please their big donors by REMOVING THE ABILITY FOR THEM TO TAKE THE BIG DONATIONS.
Yup, you can always move from one place where the local gov't gave out a monopoly to another place where the local gov't gave out a monopoly. This behavior is endemic and widespread. You'll just move from one monopoly to another.
How are you planning to build mesh networks when there's limited (read: monopoly) choices for the actual connection to the internet? It's all well and good to have a mesh connection, but if that's dependent on a filtered/metered/throttled/non-neutral connection to the backbone, what's the improvement?
Actually, it's even worse than that; these Internet monopolies have their foundation in government-granted monopoly rights, and thus you want government to save society from government.
Well, yes. IF you're going to give out government-granted monopoly rights (which IS what has and is happening), then ALSO ensure government-enforced neutrality.
Otherwise, get government COMPLETELY out of the business and don't give out the monopolies in the first place.
Yup. Unfortunately, it's not an issue that's going to change anyone's vote. I'm all for an open market and less government regulation, but if we're going down that road with ISPs, we should go all the way - stop giving out government-sponsored monopolies to cable companies (read: ISPs) and the like, and have real competition. Then, the cry of "if your ISP isn't giving you what you want, switch to another provider!" can really happen.
It's not always "shoddy practices" of the end user. Sometimes, you're stuck with legacy hardware (manufacturing environments are particularly susceptible to this) and/or software. In those cases, the user is at the mercy of the vendor - and before anyone says "well, you shouldn't have picked that vendor", sometimes there really is no reasonable alternative.
While there have been plenty of "under the hood" improvements between XP and Win10, as a general-purpose OS, I despise Win10. The user interface is an absolute nightmare for anyone who started with a previous version of Windows.
A few years back, I had to get my mother a computer, and wound up giving her my old Macbook pro. When, just last month, we needed to get her a new machine (the MBP I had given her was almost 10 years old, btw - an excellent lifespan for a machine), I was ecstatic when she said she wanted to stay with Mac rather than going back to Windows. I hated the idea of having to try to teach her the Win10 interface. It would have taken me days.
Windows or Mac, I don't care what you use (I use both) and I'm not going to make judgments on which is better - but PLEASE, Microsoft, stop radically changing the UI. It's a nightmare for those of us who wind up having to teach the new UI and how to work with it to others.
While it's certainly true that the vast majority of returns are never looked at by any human (it would be insanely cost-prohibitive), I would suspect that the logic applied by their automated systems is decent. My point was, they will tell you what you owe, even with the current system.
Why is allowing them to create and offer online filing any different from allowing them to create paper forms with instructions for the calculations? Feel free to go ahead and use tax preparers, accountants, etc., but if you choose not to, why is it necessary to pay some company for the privilege of filing online?
Politicians from both sides introducing a bill that's bad for citizens based on the lobbying of an industry.
To quote Claude Raines from Casablanca, "I am shocked—shocked—to find that gambling is going on in here!"
I have a tendency to agree with you, I was just giving them props for doing what all the vendors should be doing, and doing it in a timely manner.
I recently moved to an apartment where I get free wifi. In my old place, I paid for the internet access myself, and had a direct wired connection. Rather than reprogram all my devices, I got a wifi bridge, connected that to the wifi provided to me, and plugged my old router into the bridge's ethernet port. My router complained a little about double-nat, but it honestly hasn't caused any actual issues, and I turned off the notification. The more I think about this, the more I like it from a security perspective. If someone wants to get to my devices, they'll have to get through two different router/firewall combinations from two different vendors.
Here's the problem with that: until people are actually affected by it (we haven't seen any REAL effects yet), it's not an issue that anyone cares about enough to change their vote.
I've never understood the desire for some people to get on the plane right away. You don't get to leave any sooner and you're just getting into a more cramped / crowded environment. That's why I don't mind getting stuck in Zone 5, Group 9, or whatever they call the last group of people getting on the plane.
Hallelujah to that! I'd much rather sit in what is almost always a more comfortable seat at the gate than in the cramped seat in the plane.
I'd tend to disagree. There are realistic options, but they take more effort to use - the Facebooks and Googles of the world are so much easier, many people make the decision to use them even though they know they're giving up some information. I think that most people who make that decision have no idea exactly HOW MUCH information they're giving up. If they really knew the amount and kind of data these companies had on them, they'd be shocked.
I hear ya. I think it's difficult to make someone understand an explanation other than "paranoid nutters" or "you have something to hide". I myself don't think that way, but it's been increasingly difficult over the last few years to make people understand that maybe I just don't want these companies to have so much information about me.
I'm OK with them charging whatever they need to to stay in business. I'm just saying that they're disingenuous when trying to explain the pricing to consumers, and that I'm NOT OK with.
Kingbilly, I'm right with you. I'm certainly not one to argue for corporate greed, but again, we're talking about entertainment content here. The ethical solution to "I think they're priced too high, they're ripping me off" ISN'T "so I'm going to steal from them". It's "then I will simply choose not to purchase their product/service". Netflix is hardly an essential for life. Vote in the market with your pocketbook - if enough people decide the prices are too high, one of two things will happen: either the prices will come down, or they'll go out of business. Don't steal just because a luxury item is priced too high for your liking.
Slashdot Mirror
Way to respond without actually giving an example of how it could be done with the current infrastructure.
1) No substantive point here. Nothing but insults 2) You have no idea who I am, even though I, unlike you, have the courage to post without the mask of an AC. 3) I enjoy debating with trolls. You won't win against me, and you'll just continue to show that you're incapable of arguing an well-thought point.
First of all, the link you provided is an opinion piece. I checked that when I read "There is no medical justification for any abortion, period" in the text of the piece.
At no point in the piece you linked to does it describe anything like "they birth the baby as normal and then jam a spike through its brain to kill it".
For the record, I'm both pro-life and pro-choice. I believe that in most cases, abortion is morally wrong, but I also don't believe it's my place to tell other people what to do when it comes to doing something that has been deemed legal.
Absolute fallacy. What you should be asking for is NOT ALLOWING DONATIONS FROM THE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. Get politicians out of the business of voting to please their big donors by REMOVING THE ABILITY FOR THEM TO TAKE THE BIG DONATIONS.
"post-birth abortions"? that's a new one on me.
Yup, you can always move from one place where the local gov't gave out a monopoly to another place where the local gov't gave out a monopoly. This behavior is endemic and widespread. You'll just move from one monopoly to another.
How are you planning to build mesh networks when there's limited (read: monopoly) choices for the actual connection to the internet? It's all well and good to have a mesh connection, but if that's dependent on a filtered/metered/throttled/non-neutral connection to the backbone, what's the improvement?
Actually, it's even worse than that; these Internet monopolies have their foundation in government-granted monopoly rights, and thus you want government to save society from government.
Well, yes. IF you're going to give out government-granted monopoly rights (which IS what has and is happening), then ALSO ensure government-enforced neutrality.
Otherwise, get government COMPLETELY out of the business and don't give out the monopolies in the first place.
Yup. Unfortunately, it's not an issue that's going to change anyone's vote. I'm all for an open market and less government regulation, but if we're going down that road with ISPs, we should go all the way - stop giving out government-sponsored monopolies to cable companies (read: ISPs) and the like, and have real competition. Then, the cry of "if your ISP isn't giving you what you want, switch to another provider!" can really happen.
Interesting. Not a whole lot of info about it on its site, though.
I've LONG since returned to FF. The best out there, IMO.
It's not always "shoddy practices" of the end user. Sometimes, you're stuck with legacy hardware (manufacturing environments are particularly susceptible to this) and/or software. In those cases, the user is at the mercy of the vendor - and before anyone says "well, you shouldn't have picked that vendor", sometimes there really is no reasonable alternative.
While there have been plenty of "under the hood" improvements between XP and Win10, as a general-purpose OS, I despise Win10. The user interface is an absolute nightmare for anyone who started with a previous version of Windows.
A few years back, I had to get my mother a computer, and wound up giving her my old Macbook pro. When, just last month, we needed to get her a new machine (the MBP I had given her was almost 10 years old, btw - an excellent lifespan for a machine), I was ecstatic when she said she wanted to stay with Mac rather than going back to Windows. I hated the idea of having to try to teach her the Win10 interface. It would have taken me days.
Windows or Mac, I don't care what you use (I use both) and I'm not going to make judgments on which is better - but PLEASE, Microsoft, stop radically changing the UI. It's a nightmare for those of us who wind up having to teach the new UI and how to work with it to others.
While it's certainly true that the vast majority of returns are never looked at by any human (it would be insanely cost-prohibitive), I would suspect that the logic applied by their automated systems is decent. My point was, they will tell you what you owe, even with the current system.
Why is allowing them to create and offer online filing any different from allowing them to create paper forms with instructions for the calculations? Feel free to go ahead and use tax preparers, accountants, etc., but if you choose not to, why is it necessary to pay some company for the privilege of filing online?
Oh, boy. You do know that they actually LOOK at the returns, right? Try having them not tell you how much you owe when they audit you.
Politicians from both sides introducing a bill that's bad for citizens based on the lobbying of an industry. To quote Claude Raines from Casablanca, "I am shocked—shocked—to find that gambling is going on in here!"
I have a tendency to agree with you, I was just giving them props for doing what all the vendors should be doing, and doing it in a timely manner.
I recently moved to an apartment where I get free wifi. In my old place, I paid for the internet access myself, and had a direct wired connection. Rather than reprogram all my devices, I got a wifi bridge, connected that to the wifi provided to me, and plugged my old router into the bridge's ethernet port. My router complained a little about double-nat, but it honestly hasn't caused any actual issues, and I turned off the notification. The more I think about this, the more I like it from a security perspective. If someone wants to get to my devices, they'll have to get through two different router/firewall combinations from two different vendors.
Being made aware of a vulnerability, producing a patch in a timely fashion, and pushing it out to vulnerable devices? Wow. That's actually well done.
Here's the problem with that: until people are actually affected by it (we haven't seen any REAL effects yet), it's not an issue that anyone cares about enough to change their vote.
^^^This. It won't change anyone's vote.
I've never understood the desire for some people to get on the plane right away. You don't get to leave any sooner and you're just getting into a more cramped / crowded environment. That's why I don't mind getting stuck in Zone 5, Group 9, or whatever they call the last group of people getting on the plane.
Hallelujah to that! I'd much rather sit in what is almost always a more comfortable seat at the gate than in the cramped seat in the plane.
I'd tend to disagree. There are realistic options, but they take more effort to use - the Facebooks and Googles of the world are so much easier, many people make the decision to use them even though they know they're giving up some information. I think that most people who make that decision have no idea exactly HOW MUCH information they're giving up. If they really knew the amount and kind of data these companies had on them, they'd be shocked.
I hear ya. I think it's difficult to make someone understand an explanation other than "paranoid nutters" or "you have something to hide". I myself don't think that way, but it's been increasingly difficult over the last few years to make people understand that maybe I just don't want these companies to have so much information about me.
Excellent question. I believe the answer is that almost NO ONE cares what the companies are doing. If they cared, they'd stop using the services.
I'm OK with them charging whatever they need to to stay in business. I'm just saying that they're disingenuous when trying to explain the pricing to consumers, and that I'm NOT OK with.
Kingbilly, I'm right with you. I'm certainly not one to argue for corporate greed, but again, we're talking about entertainment content here. The ethical solution to "I think they're priced too high, they're ripping me off" ISN'T "so I'm going to steal from them". It's "then I will simply choose not to purchase their product/service". Netflix is hardly an essential for life. Vote in the market with your pocketbook - if enough people decide the prices are too high, one of two things will happen: either the prices will come down, or they'll go out of business. Don't steal just because a luxury item is priced too high for your liking.