Most people spend a ton of time on their phone. Hours and hours a day, every day. Most people have their phone with them 24/7. It plays a critical role in their social life, and often work life too. Social media apps, text messaging, web browsing, clock, alarm, e-mails, shopping... no other single object is so heavily used. So it's understandable that most people want to get the best experience they can with it. I'm surprised Slashdot has such trouble understanding this, when we all understand how gaming can be so important to someone that they buy premium graphics cards, monitors, etc, just to get a slightly better picture and slightly faster framerate.
This comment has been up for almost 2 hours and none of Mozilla's paid shills have showed up to explain how WebExtensions are teh b3st thing ever!! and will actually support all your favorite extensions**?
Wait for it....
**-If the developer completely re-writes from scratch and spends months working with Mozilla to get new WebExtensions functionality added in, so long as that functionality is Mozilla-Approved, and if it's not, the addon can just keep the features that are, as long as some part of the addon can work, it's counted, even if it won't be done for months and months after 57 breaks the old one. Mozilla is the king of pissing on their users heads and trying to convince them that not only is it raining, but the rain is a good thing, and if it ruins anything it's the manufactures fault for not re-engineering their product to be waterproof.
Due process should come before punishment, not after. Just more collateral damage from the War on Drugs; civil asset forfeiture of course being sold to us a tool to confiscate the profits of kingpins. Nobody questioned the lack of need for a conviction at the time, because don't worry, it's just for those rich cartel leaders. Now of course, if you think *this* is terrible, dig a little deeper. They'll make seizures of under $100, will fight tooth and nail against people even after it becomes obvious the money is clean hoping to make them drop it because the legal fees exceed the recoverable amount (no lawyer if you can't pay for one, and no jury trial), and use the money to fund their own department, including things like travel, parties, and margarita machines. Lots of places automatically seize any cash they catch you with, then make you prove it's not illegal. All without even requiring an *arrest*, not a charge, and certainly not a conviction. Forfeiture abuse in this country is rampant, growing by a huge amount every year, and the small amount of federal reforms that were made are now being gleefully erased by Sessions, who's a huge fan of it, still telling us that it's only used against big time criminals.
That happens all the time to this day, more and more frequently in fact. It's up by huge amounts every year, and for many departments is a major funding source. Some places are even trying to equip cops with card readers so they can seize any assets you have that way during traffic stops too. It's not even limited to large amounts, they routinely seize under $100. What's more, since it's a civil action against your property and you're not accused of a crime, you're not entitled to a lawyer so have to pay for one at your own expense to fight the seizure, and can't get attorneys fees covered. It's truly disgusting. Not surprisingly, Jeff Sessions is a huge fan of it and announced that he was rolling back restrictions designed to prevent the worst abuses of it at the federal level, including one on limiting states' ability to get around their own forfeiture laws by partnering with the feds. And not only do no states require a criminal charge, much less a conviction, around half of them only use the weakest standard there is (preponderance) for challenges, for which you can't get a jury trial, and the judge always gives enormous deference to the cops. It's nothing short of a massive program of legalized theft by armed government agents.
I would love to see an article explaining how we got to be the number 1 nation in imprisoning people.
There's 10s of thousands of articles out there on the War on Drugs, take your pic.
The real problem is our inability accept facts and logic. Eliminating drug abuse by forcefully stopping it wasn't an entirely unreasonable thing to try, especially back then when the issue wasn't well studied. But it's 100 years now since the first drug prohibition, and >40 of the modern War on Drugs. It has been demonstrated beyond any doubt that no matter how harsh the penalties, even the death penalty for drugs some countries have, prohibition does not work. Anybody can get any drug they want, even in maximum security prisons. Our 4th Amendment rights are nearly dead largely because of this. Loads of other rights are seriously damaged. Police becoming heavily armed soldiers with us as the enemy are a consequence of this. You might be able to justify all that, and the millions upon millions of lives ruined, and the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, if it was eliminating or seriously reducing the harm drugs cause to society... but it unequivocally is not.
Drugs like cocaine, heroin, and meth have horrific consequences when they're abused; to the user, to their family, and to society. Since eliminating them is absolutely never gonna happen, we should instead pick the policy that minimizes the harm caused. Most people are simply incapable of accepting that criminal prohibition instead takes these very harmful substances, and increases their harm by orders of magnitude, and strips everyone of their civil rights.
If you want to:
-Minimize the number of addicts,
-Minimize the number of ODs,
-Minimize acquisitive crime (property crime to raise money),
-Minimize violent crimes,
-Maximize opportunities for people with abuse issues to get help,
Then you have to provide tightly regulated, but legal, access, to all drugs. There's been extensive studies on this, it's not some random idea, it's a thoroughly studied and validated fact. Use does not increase. Portugal decriminalized all drugs for personal use; use went down. Turns out there's not loads of people saying 'gee, I sure wish heroin wasn't illegal, I'd try it otherwise'; something compounded by the fact the people most likely to develop an abuse issue are the least likely to be deterred by legality. All of the money currently spent on prohibition would instead go to education, prevention, and treatment- every dollar spent on that reduces drug abuse more than a dollar spent on prohibition. The money taken away from violent criminal organizations would completely cripple them. There'd be more cooperation with police who weren't constantly breaking down doors and shooting dogs, or sexually assaulting people on the side of the road with cavity searches (seriously, google roadside cavity search). There'd be less harassment when police couldn't bump their numbers with petty drug crimes.
It's a hard fact to swallow, because you see the damage drugs can do, and desperately want that to never happen. But since that's impossible, you have to instead mitigate. However bad you think a given drug is, prohibition makes it worse. Whenever you say "Well, $x shouldn't be illegal because $y", $y is made worse, not better, by keeping it illegal.
It also points to a larger issue as well: If you can't keep cell phones and drugs out of maximum security prisons, how could you ever hope to keep drugs out of the country. What's worse, people realize this, but then still won't support alternatives (besides for pot).
If prisons were actually reserved for people who really belonged in prison, the price of phone calls for that far smaller group would be less of an issue. (And they love to talk about how most aren't in there for drugs, but if you eliminated the drug war, you'd decimate property crime and make a major dent in violent crimes associated with the black market and gangs, on top of the people with serious abuse issues being more able to get help, preventing other crimes done under the influence). 'Do you think we can win the drug war?' 'No' 'Then should drugs beyond pot be legal and regulated?' 'No those are bad!' No duh they're bad but the drug war isn't going to suddenly work because $current_evilest_drugs are "really bad". Nobody cares that by every single metric you can possibly think of prohibition takes some bad and makes it worse, because they want the bad thing gone and conceding that's not happening is intolerable.
So, make prison for the actual worst of the worst, then nobody will care much for phone prices. In the mean time, here's some ideas:
-Nobody who hasn't been convicted yet should have to pay for phone calls, period.
-Break up the GTL/Securus monopoly and allow competition
-Low-income families should get a reduced rate and/or a limited amount of free calls
-Calls on holidays should be free.
-Take these white collar guys that are forfeiting millions of dollars and apply some of their forfeiture/fines to make them pay for everyone on the block's calls. Bonus points for an 'asshole of the decade' fine... Shkreli and Madoff should cover their entire prison's phone bills. And commissary.
Privatized prisons and jails account for less than 10% of current facilities.
I'm confused as to why you're mentioning that... it's got nothing to do with the phone situation. Private or not, all prison phones are controlled by the same oligopoly, eg Securus and GTL. It's not a private/public issue, all jails/prisons charge the same exorbitant rates from the same vendors. And there are no inexpensive vendors to choose from, because the oligopoly keeps competitors out, very effectively because of the legal/contract issues.
No, not "everyone". Only members of legally protected classes. You can't pay men and women systematically differently for the same work. You can't pay blacks and whites systematically differently for the same work.
It actually would be "everyone" unless men and women asked for and were given raises at the same rate. But since they're not, you're basically claiming nobody is allowed to ask for a raise unless it's for everyone (you can't systematically pay men less either).
The rest of your comment seems to represent a misunderstanding of the law. A disparity existing in and of itself is *not* illegal. Look at hiring discrimination: it's illegal to discriminate based on gender or color. But there's numerous jobs that are nearly all men or women. Is that illegal? Not if that was simply the pool of qualified applicants. Same principle applies.
It's the same thing with salary. You're saying the law requires equality of outcome. It does not. It requires equality of opportunity. Men and women have to be equally able to ask for and receive raises for the same merit. Simply put, it's the old correlation vs. causation thing. There has to be causation, that the correlation exists *because* of their gender/race/whatever.
When your comment is filled with all caps like you're yelling something obvious, make sure it's actually right, you flaming imbecile. That you've repeated your ignorance a bunch of other times is even worse. That's what happens when you play internet lawyer, you make people stupider, and/. isn't the place for that.
'Liking' a page is not actively participating in the planning of a crime. That you continue to say so makes you the exact same kind of scum as the people demanding the info, leaving out the critical distinction that makes it abusive instead of legitimate, because that interferes with the ultimate goal of attacking critical speech to quell such dissent in the future..
But liking the page isn't a crime. It doesn't mean you're planning to commit a crime. Approving of people planning a crime is not illegal. Had they confined their information demand to people who posted something indicating participation, I'd agree with you. They did not, instead opting to make the demand as broad as possible in a clear bid to chill speech.
They didn't care about civil liberties. They cared about looking like they cared about civil liberties while wiping their ass with the Bill of Rights. Now of course Darth Cheeto and Herr Ernie are wiping their ass with the Bill of Rights and setting it on fire afterwards, but neither act is praiseworthy.
No. That is not a legitimate defense. It is illegal to systematically pay men and women differently for doing the same work. Unless Oracle was hiring professional negotiators, "ability to negotiate" is not related to the job and is not a legal justification for pay disparity.
So basically, if a man goes to boss and says 'My value to this company is under-recognized and I want a raise', the boss must either deny it or then give everyone the same raise? If men are more likely to do that (and evidence suggests they are; facts don't stop being facts because they offend social justice), it would become systemic eventually. If women of equal merit asked for the same amounts at the same rate but were more likely to be denied, that would be discrimination, but that's a different scenario.
And what happened? Democrats realized that was horribly wrong and turned away from racism, while Republicans said "hey that's a pretty good thing!" and took over the racist mantle. Among people alive today, the right is more racist than the left by orders of magnitude. So whine about the past all you want, like it excuses the abhorrent bigotry of the right today.
Be careful trying to play that word game. The main thing we're talking about here is DSM-V defined mental disorders (homosexuality is not one, but gender dysphoria is). If you want to say that's just a "disorder", then by psychological definition also realize that another "disorder" is pedophilia. Want to argue pedophiles aren't mentally ill because pedophilia is "just a disorder"? Or are you just completely untethered from any kind of formal definition used by mental health professionals and just asserting what you "feel" is a disorder or an illness, therefore that wouldn't be true. (This isn't meant to impugn trans- folks, I'm very pro-LGBT, it's just this guy is playing stupid word games)
Once law enforcement has a capability, never in a million years are you going to get them (or the courts for that matter) to restrict the use to the most serious crimes. Case in point, the PATRIOT Act. It was sold to us as a vital tool to fight terrorism, giving police these strong new powers to stop the next 9/11. Fastforward a couple years, and terrorism makes up a low single digit percent of PATRIOT Act usage, and it's around 80% of the time used for routine drug cases. And all these new laws designed to fight sex trafficking? 99.9% used against fully consensual adult prostitution. Child sex trafficking? 99% stings that catch guys who don't back out when an undercover says she's actually only 16-17 (when it's legal to have sex with girls that age if prostitution isn't involved anyway, in most states), and 0.999% actual 16-17 year olds who are pimping themselves out and got an 18-19 year old friend to drive them somewhere or watch out for their safety, then 0.001% cases involving someone younger or being coerced.
I'm of the opinion that police simply don't need these vastly expanded powers, because the 1% of the time they're used properly don't make up for the 99% of the time they're not.
Those are all good reasons for the capability to be there, but not for it being mandatory and incapable of being disabled. You really can't think of a scenario where someone might want to call 911, but not themselves be tracked? What a sheltered life you must have had.
Trusted flagger is code for the MAFIAA being able to take down anything they want immediately. No requirement for accuracy, no penalty for even the most malicious takedowns- even when falsely confirming on appeal, absolutely no liability for damages, and no ability to challenge a fraudulent appeal rejection for anyone unable to get press coverage. See: YouTube. They want to expand that to more sites and more copyright holders.
Indeed. It's getting extremely frustrating; all these companies are so anxious to get to the point where there actually is no bezel, that now they just call any bezel smaller than the previous generation of phones "edge-to-edge" or even "bezel-less". They already have the technology, as the Samsung Edge devices show (they don't even need to make it wrap around so far); my guess is they want to milk things for a few generations before making a truly all-screen phone. After all, once the bezel is gone completely, where do they go from there?
The iPhone X bezel is huge from the looks of that video.
More than a handful use TabMixPlus, Classic Theme Restorer, and DownThemAll, just to name 3. And those will be either severely reduced in functionality or outright impossible. Tab Mix Plus was the main reason I used Chrome for one day and found the UI so intolerable as to be unacceptable for my main browser. And smaller addons add up; at least half of mine had non equivalent in Chrome, and won't in WebExtensions either. It's great some of the largest ones can get most of their functionality back, but spending hundreds of hours re-writing your extension and working with Mozilla to get entirely new APIs implemented just isn't an option for dozens of small addons, which as I said, add up.
It's a terrible decision that no one wanted. They're shoving it down our throats. That alone should be reason to not continue with FF. And alienating your entire existing userbase to try to steal shares from a competitor by becoming more like them, by copying everything bad about them and skipping the good, is a terrible business strategy. It's not going to work, everyone will just go to Chrome proper or a FF fork.
So your more relevant analog is "no easy removal of Windows security patches you've previously applied", and somehow you feel things are overstated? Inability to roll back Windows security patches would be outright catastrophic given the frequency at which they break something.
The V20 makes the point that features and shiny aren't mutally exclusive. IMO it's an absolutely beautiful looking phone too, and much thinner than previous generations and on par with the Galaxy/iPhone. The curved edges of the Galaxy look much nicer, but besides that the V20 looks cooler.
The thing is, they see the popularity of phones like the Galaxy and iPhone, and conclude that well, obviously that's what consumers want. So they try to make their phones more like the more successful competition. But that line of thinking leads to failure (see also: Firefox)... because while it's true that consumers do care about the Galaxy line, you're not going to be able to take significant market share away from a product out in the lead like that, because they're already entrenched-- so the consumers that care about its features are *already* going to choose the Galaxy, they won't suddenly switch to LG because 'hey, it's slightly more like the Galaxy now!'. It has to be different and better to change the market share equation. Better does indeed include design, there's no getting around that, but the V20 proved that a removable battery making the phone thicker is a lie; it was half a millimeter thicker than the Galaxy S6 Edge and only 0.3mm thicker than the iPhone 7+, differences so small you wouldn't notice.
You should incorporate its best features, but you have to find something compelling to pull in new users-- and you also want to keep your existing userbase that likes the current features, because they're the ones that will talk up your product when someone asks them what phone they should pick.
So what should the course of action have been? They could have easily kept the removable battery and second screen, while adding those beautiful curved edges at the side and still reducing the top and bottom bezels (and someone below mentioned the notification LED, man I sure miss the rainbow LED I could program with so detail with ColorFlow, on my previous phone- the LG G2, they could have added one of those in).
So with the V30 taken out of the running, are there even any flagship level phones left that have a removable battery? Probably would have to import one. Since I just upgraded to the V20 it will be a while, maybe they'll reverse course again by the time an upgrade is needed and the V40 or V50 is out. If LG had any real sense they'd immediately hire me after reading this post. I could tell them all about how they botched QPair too, which sounded so cool.
The removable battery, SD card, and 2nd display is why I bought the V20 over the Galaxy and iPhone. If I wanted one of those I would have bought them, and come next upgrade I'll just buy Galaxy if there's nothing unique setting it apart that's not trivial.
Yup, there we go, downmod and ignore, because transmen existing isn't compatible with the narrative where you attempt to excuse bigotry with false claims that it's a safety issue.
Or maybe it's the second part, because SJWs can't reconcile their belief in equality with the idea that not only are bathrooms exempt, they're exempt only on the basis of gender; 'separate but equal is inherently unequal' instead of being true is only true when we feel like it. Instead of downmod and ignore, why don't you go ahead and give me one logical argument why gender discrimination should be acceptable, but racial discrimination should not be, but only for bathrooms. Resorting to feelz doesn't work, because however people can feel, regarding their privacy and safety, about the other gender, some people also feel about other races. Since the world does indeed have plenty of unisex facilities, surely if there actually is a basis in fact for increased safety risk, evidence should exist... but wait! The reality is certain races, despite the reason being poverty and systemic disenfranchisement rather than anything biological, *do* in fact commit more violent crimes. It's an uncomfortable reality, but no matter what the reason, the disparity exists-- so even if there were a safety reason for discrimination (spoiler alert: there's not), it's not something that can justify gender discrimination but not race discrimination. Basically the only reason you have is because people feel it's a privacy violation; but beyond the fact that there's no fundamentally valid reason for that, you're saying that one persons feelings about their privacy are valid, but someone else's aren't. Let's face it, what's between a persons legs, like the color of their skin, shouldn't justify discrimination or segregation, period, not "asterisk - void in places where enough people like segregation".
Slashdot Mirror
Most people spend a ton of time on their phone. Hours and hours a day, every day. Most people have their phone with them 24/7. It plays a critical role in their social life, and often work life too. Social media apps, text messaging, web browsing, clock, alarm, e-mails, shopping... no other single object is so heavily used. So it's understandable that most people want to get the best experience they can with it. I'm surprised Slashdot has such trouble understanding this, when we all understand how gaming can be so important to someone that they buy premium graphics cards, monitors, etc, just to get a slightly better picture and slightly faster framerate.
This comment has been up for almost 2 hours and none of Mozilla's paid shills have showed up to explain how WebExtensions are teh b3st thing ever!! and will actually support all your favorite extensions**?
Wait for it....
**-If the developer completely re-writes from scratch and spends months working with Mozilla to get new WebExtensions functionality added in, so long as that functionality is Mozilla-Approved, and if it's not, the addon can just keep the features that are, as long as some part of the addon can work, it's counted, even if it won't be done for months and months after 57 breaks the old one. Mozilla is the king of pissing on their users heads and trying to convince them that not only is it raining, but the rain is a good thing, and if it ruins anything it's the manufactures fault for not re-engineering their product to be waterproof.
Due process should come before punishment, not after. Just more collateral damage from the War on Drugs; civil asset forfeiture of course being sold to us a tool to confiscate the profits of kingpins. Nobody questioned the lack of need for a conviction at the time, because don't worry, it's just for those rich cartel leaders. Now of course, if you think *this* is terrible, dig a little deeper. They'll make seizures of under $100, will fight tooth and nail against people even after it becomes obvious the money is clean hoping to make them drop it because the legal fees exceed the recoverable amount (no lawyer if you can't pay for one, and no jury trial), and use the money to fund their own department, including things like travel, parties, and margarita machines. Lots of places automatically seize any cash they catch you with, then make you prove it's not illegal. All without even requiring an *arrest*, not a charge, and certainly not a conviction. Forfeiture abuse in this country is rampant, growing by a huge amount every year, and the small amount of federal reforms that were made are now being gleefully erased by Sessions, who's a huge fan of it, still telling us that it's only used against big time criminals.
That happens all the time to this day, more and more frequently in fact. It's up by huge amounts every year, and for many departments is a major funding source. Some places are even trying to equip cops with card readers so they can seize any assets you have that way during traffic stops too. It's not even limited to large amounts, they routinely seize under $100. What's more, since it's a civil action against your property and you're not accused of a crime, you're not entitled to a lawyer so have to pay for one at your own expense to fight the seizure, and can't get attorneys fees covered. It's truly disgusting. Not surprisingly, Jeff Sessions is a huge fan of it and announced that he was rolling back restrictions designed to prevent the worst abuses of it at the federal level, including one on limiting states' ability to get around their own forfeiture laws by partnering with the feds. And not only do no states require a criminal charge, much less a conviction, around half of them only use the weakest standard there is (preponderance) for challenges, for which you can't get a jury trial, and the judge always gives enormous deference to the cops. It's nothing short of a massive program of legalized theft by armed government agents.
I would love to see an article explaining how we got to be the number 1 nation in imprisoning people.
There's 10s of thousands of articles out there on the War on Drugs, take your pic.
The real problem is our inability accept facts and logic. Eliminating drug abuse by forcefully stopping it wasn't an entirely unreasonable thing to try, especially back then when the issue wasn't well studied. But it's 100 years now since the first drug prohibition, and >40 of the modern War on Drugs. It has been demonstrated beyond any doubt that no matter how harsh the penalties, even the death penalty for drugs some countries have, prohibition does not work. Anybody can get any drug they want, even in maximum security prisons. Our 4th Amendment rights are nearly dead largely because of this. Loads of other rights are seriously damaged. Police becoming heavily armed soldiers with us as the enemy are a consequence of this. You might be able to justify all that, and the millions upon millions of lives ruined, and the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, if it was eliminating or seriously reducing the harm drugs cause to society... but it unequivocally is not.
Drugs like cocaine, heroin, and meth have horrific consequences when they're abused; to the user, to their family, and to society. Since eliminating them is absolutely never gonna happen, we should instead pick the policy that minimizes the harm caused. Most people are simply incapable of accepting that criminal prohibition instead takes these very harmful substances, and increases their harm by orders of magnitude, and strips everyone of their civil rights.
If you want to:
-Minimize the number of addicts,
-Minimize the number of ODs,
-Minimize acquisitive crime (property crime to raise money),
-Minimize violent crimes,
-Maximize opportunities for people with abuse issues to get help,
Then you have to provide tightly regulated, but legal, access, to all drugs. There's been extensive studies on this, it's not some random idea, it's a thoroughly studied and validated fact. Use does not increase. Portugal decriminalized all drugs for personal use; use went down. Turns out there's not loads of people saying 'gee, I sure wish heroin wasn't illegal, I'd try it otherwise'; something compounded by the fact the people most likely to develop an abuse issue are the least likely to be deterred by legality. All of the money currently spent on prohibition would instead go to education, prevention, and treatment- every dollar spent on that reduces drug abuse more than a dollar spent on prohibition. The money taken away from violent criminal organizations would completely cripple them. There'd be more cooperation with police who weren't constantly breaking down doors and shooting dogs, or sexually assaulting people on the side of the road with cavity searches (seriously, google roadside cavity search). There'd be less harassment when police couldn't bump their numbers with petty drug crimes.
It's a hard fact to swallow, because you see the damage drugs can do, and desperately want that to never happen. But since that's impossible, you have to instead mitigate. However bad you think a given drug is, prohibition makes it worse. Whenever you say "Well, $x shouldn't be illegal because $y", $y is made worse, not better, by keeping it illegal.
It also points to a larger issue as well: If you can't keep cell phones and drugs out of maximum security prisons, how could you ever hope to keep drugs out of the country. What's worse, people realize this, but then still won't support alternatives (besides for pot).
If prisons were actually reserved for people who really belonged in prison, the price of phone calls for that far smaller group would be less of an issue. (And they love to talk about how most aren't in there for drugs, but if you eliminated the drug war, you'd decimate property crime and make a major dent in violent crimes associated with the black market and gangs, on top of the people with serious abuse issues being more able to get help, preventing other crimes done under the influence). 'Do you think we can win the drug war?' 'No' 'Then should drugs beyond pot be legal and regulated?' 'No those are bad!' No duh they're bad but the drug war isn't going to suddenly work because $current_evilest_drugs are "really bad". Nobody cares that by every single metric you can possibly think of prohibition takes some bad and makes it worse, because they want the bad thing gone and conceding that's not happening is intolerable.
So, make prison for the actual worst of the worst, then nobody will care much for phone prices. In the mean time, here's some ideas:
-Nobody who hasn't been convicted yet should have to pay for phone calls, period.
-Break up the GTL/Securus monopoly and allow competition
-Low-income families should get a reduced rate and/or a limited amount of free calls
-Calls on holidays should be free.
-Take these white collar guys that are forfeiting millions of dollars and apply some of their forfeiture/fines to make them pay for everyone on the block's calls. Bonus points for an 'asshole of the decade' fine... Shkreli and Madoff should cover their entire prison's phone bills. And commissary.
Privatized prisons and jails account for less than 10% of current facilities.
I'm confused as to why you're mentioning that... it's got nothing to do with the phone situation. Private or not, all prison phones are controlled by the same oligopoly, eg Securus and GTL. It's not a private/public issue, all jails/prisons charge the same exorbitant rates from the same vendors. And there are no inexpensive vendors to choose from, because the oligopoly keeps competitors out, very effectively because of the legal/contract issues.
No, not "everyone". Only members of legally protected classes. You can't pay men and women systematically differently for the same work. You can't pay blacks and whites systematically differently for the same work.
It actually would be "everyone" unless men and women asked for and were given raises at the same rate. But since they're not, you're basically claiming nobody is allowed to ask for a raise unless it's for everyone (you can't systematically pay men less either). The rest of your comment seems to represent a misunderstanding of the law. A disparity existing in and of itself is *not* illegal. Look at hiring discrimination: it's illegal to discriminate based on gender or color. But there's numerous jobs that are nearly all men or women. Is that illegal? Not if that was simply the pool of qualified applicants. Same principle applies. /. isn't the place for that.
It's the same thing with salary. You're saying the law requires equality of outcome. It does not. It requires equality of opportunity. Men and women have to be equally able to ask for and receive raises for the same merit. Simply put, it's the old correlation vs. causation thing. There has to be causation, that the correlation exists *because* of their gender/race/whatever.
When your comment is filled with all caps like you're yelling something obvious, make sure it's actually right, you flaming imbecile. That you've repeated your ignorance a bunch of other times is even worse. That's what happens when you play internet lawyer, you make people stupider, and
'Liking' a page is not actively participating in the planning of a crime. That you continue to say so makes you the exact same kind of scum as the people demanding the info, leaving out the critical distinction that makes it abusive instead of legitimate, because that interferes with the ultimate goal of attacking critical speech to quell such dissent in the future..
But liking the page isn't a crime. It doesn't mean you're planning to commit a crime. Approving of people planning a crime is not illegal. Had they confined their information demand to people who posted something indicating participation, I'd agree with you. They did not, instead opting to make the demand as broad as possible in a clear bid to chill speech.
They didn't care about civil liberties. They cared about looking like they cared about civil liberties while wiping their ass with the Bill of Rights. Now of course Darth Cheeto and Herr Ernie are wiping their ass with the Bill of Rights and setting it on fire afterwards, but neither act is praiseworthy.
Did you just assume their cis/trans status!?!!?!?!? You're literally Hitler.
No. That is not a legitimate defense. It is illegal to systematically pay men and women differently for doing the same work. Unless Oracle was hiring professional negotiators, "ability to negotiate" is not related to the job and is not a legal justification for pay disparity.
So basically, if a man goes to boss and says 'My value to this company is under-recognized and I want a raise', the boss must either deny it or then give everyone the same raise? If men are more likely to do that (and evidence suggests they are; facts don't stop being facts because they offend social justice), it would become systemic eventually. If women of equal merit asked for the same amounts at the same rate but were more likely to be denied, that would be discrimination, but that's a different scenario.
And what happened? Democrats realized that was horribly wrong and turned away from racism, while Republicans said "hey that's a pretty good thing!" and took over the racist mantle. Among people alive today, the right is more racist than the left by orders of magnitude. So whine about the past all you want, like it excuses the abhorrent bigotry of the right today.
Be careful trying to play that word game. The main thing we're talking about here is DSM-V defined mental disorders (homosexuality is not one, but gender dysphoria is). If you want to say that's just a "disorder", then by psychological definition also realize that another "disorder" is pedophilia. Want to argue pedophiles aren't mentally ill because pedophilia is "just a disorder"? Or are you just completely untethered from any kind of formal definition used by mental health professionals and just asserting what you "feel" is a disorder or an illness, therefore that wouldn't be true. (This isn't meant to impugn trans- folks, I'm very pro-LGBT, it's just this guy is playing stupid word games)
Once law enforcement has a capability, never in a million years are you going to get them (or the courts for that matter) to restrict the use to the most serious crimes. Case in point, the PATRIOT Act. It was sold to us as a vital tool to fight terrorism, giving police these strong new powers to stop the next 9/11. Fastforward a couple years, and terrorism makes up a low single digit percent of PATRIOT Act usage, and it's around 80% of the time used for routine drug cases. And all these new laws designed to fight sex trafficking? 99.9% used against fully consensual adult prostitution. Child sex trafficking? 99% stings that catch guys who don't back out when an undercover says she's actually only 16-17 (when it's legal to have sex with girls that age if prostitution isn't involved anyway, in most states), and 0.999% actual 16-17 year olds who are pimping themselves out and got an 18-19 year old friend to drive them somewhere or watch out for their safety, then 0.001% cases involving someone younger or being coerced.
I'm of the opinion that police simply don't need these vastly expanded powers, because the 1% of the time they're used properly don't make up for the 99% of the time they're not.
Those are all good reasons for the capability to be there, but not for it being mandatory and incapable of being disabled. You really can't think of a scenario where someone might want to call 911, but not themselves be tracked? What a sheltered life you must have had.
Trusted flagger is code for the MAFIAA being able to take down anything they want immediately. No requirement for accuracy, no penalty for even the most malicious takedowns- even when falsely confirming on appeal, absolutely no liability for damages, and no ability to challenge a fraudulent appeal rejection for anyone unable to get press coverage. See: YouTube. They want to expand that to more sites and more copyright holders.
Indeed. It's getting extremely frustrating; all these companies are so anxious to get to the point where there actually is no bezel, that now they just call any bezel smaller than the previous generation of phones "edge-to-edge" or even "bezel-less". They already have the technology, as the Samsung Edge devices show (they don't even need to make it wrap around so far); my guess is they want to milk things for a few generations before making a truly all-screen phone. After all, once the bezel is gone completely, where do they go from there?
The iPhone X bezel is huge from the looks of that video.
More than a handful use TabMixPlus, Classic Theme Restorer, and DownThemAll, just to name 3. And those will be either severely reduced in functionality or outright impossible. Tab Mix Plus was the main reason I used Chrome for one day and found the UI so intolerable as to be unacceptable for my main browser. And smaller addons add up; at least half of mine had non equivalent in Chrome, and won't in WebExtensions either. It's great some of the largest ones can get most of their functionality back, but spending hundreds of hours re-writing your extension and working with Mozilla to get entirely new APIs implemented just isn't an option for dozens of small addons, which as I said, add up.
It's a terrible decision that no one wanted. They're shoving it down our throats. That alone should be reason to not continue with FF. And alienating your entire existing userbase to try to steal shares from a competitor by becoming more like them, by copying everything bad about them and skipping the good, is a terrible business strategy. It's not going to work, everyone will just go to Chrome proper or a FF fork.
So your more relevant analog is "no easy removal of Windows security patches you've previously applied", and somehow you feel things are overstated? Inability to roll back Windows security patches would be outright catastrophic given the frequency at which they break something.
The V20 makes the point that features and shiny aren't mutally exclusive. IMO it's an absolutely beautiful looking phone too, and much thinner than previous generations and on par with the Galaxy/iPhone. The curved edges of the Galaxy look much nicer, but besides that the V20 looks cooler.
The thing is, they see the popularity of phones like the Galaxy and iPhone, and conclude that well, obviously that's what consumers want. So they try to make their phones more like the more successful competition. But that line of thinking leads to failure (see also: Firefox)... because while it's true that consumers do care about the Galaxy line, you're not going to be able to take significant market share away from a product out in the lead like that, because they're already entrenched-- so the consumers that care about its features are *already* going to choose the Galaxy, they won't suddenly switch to LG because 'hey, it's slightly more like the Galaxy now!'. It has to be different and better to change the market share equation. Better does indeed include design, there's no getting around that, but the V20 proved that a removable battery making the phone thicker is a lie; it was half a millimeter thicker than the Galaxy S6 Edge and only 0.3mm thicker than the iPhone 7+, differences so small you wouldn't notice.
You should incorporate its best features, but you have to find something compelling to pull in new users-- and you also want to keep your existing userbase that likes the current features, because they're the ones that will talk up your product when someone asks them what phone they should pick.
So what should the course of action have been? They could have easily kept the removable battery and second screen, while adding those beautiful curved edges at the side and still reducing the top and bottom bezels (and someone below mentioned the notification LED, man I sure miss the rainbow LED I could program with so detail with ColorFlow, on my previous phone- the LG G2, they could have added one of those in).
So with the V30 taken out of the running, are there even any flagship level phones left that have a removable battery? Probably would have to import one. Since I just upgraded to the V20 it will be a while, maybe they'll reverse course again by the time an upgrade is needed and the V40 or V50 is out. If LG had any real sense they'd immediately hire me after reading this post. I could tell them all about how they botched QPair too, which sounded so cool.
Really?
The removable battery, SD card, and 2nd display is why I bought the V20 over the Galaxy and iPhone. If I wanted one of those I would have bought them, and come next upgrade I'll just buy Galaxy if there's nothing unique setting it apart that's not trivial.
Yup, there we go, downmod and ignore, because transmen existing isn't compatible with the narrative where you attempt to excuse bigotry with false claims that it's a safety issue.
Or maybe it's the second part, because SJWs can't reconcile their belief in equality with the idea that not only are bathrooms exempt, they're exempt only on the basis of gender; 'separate but equal is inherently unequal' instead of being true is only true when we feel like it. Instead of downmod and ignore, why don't you go ahead and give me one logical argument why gender discrimination should be acceptable, but racial discrimination should not be, but only for bathrooms. Resorting to feelz doesn't work, because however people can feel, regarding their privacy and safety, about the other gender, some people also feel about other races. Since the world does indeed have plenty of unisex facilities, surely if there actually is a basis in fact for increased safety risk, evidence should exist... but wait! The reality is certain races, despite the reason being poverty and systemic disenfranchisement rather than anything biological, *do* in fact commit more violent crimes. It's an uncomfortable reality, but no matter what the reason, the disparity exists-- so even if there were a safety reason for discrimination (spoiler alert: there's not), it's not something that can justify gender discrimination but not race discrimination. Basically the only reason you have is because people feel it's a privacy violation; but beyond the fact that there's no fundamentally valid reason for that, you're saying that one persons feelings about their privacy are valid, but someone else's aren't. Let's face it, what's between a persons legs, like the color of their skin, shouldn't justify discrimination or segregation, period, not "asterisk - void in places where enough people like segregation".