Yeah, you would never hear a Republican saying that a person that didn't obtain legal entry papers being murderers or rapists because those crimes are completely unrelated.
You're saying there's no choice like that status quo has no alternative. It could be made illegal to geo-restrict streaming from overseas in the spirit of free-trade agreements. If consumers could connect to streaming services in Asia that have lower fees, American companies would change their practices.
Might be true, but the parent was talking about spending $10,000 on a TV that would eventually spy on him. It might be possible to buy a high-end model that doesn't have smart TV features, but you are limiting your choices.
It's definitely true that some of the Clinton policies did directly contribute to the crash of 2008, chief among these being the tax incentives for executive pay that drove unprecedented income inequality, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, NAFTA, etc. The response from the GOP hasn't exactly been a reversal of these policies. If anything, they were extended and pushed forward. Policies favoring large companies resulted in consolidation and profit/expense min-maxing, not investment or job growth.
Uber drivers aren't employees. They are independent contractors.
Uber isn't a taxi service. It's a ride sharing program.
This program isn't abusing Uber's database. It's reposting public information.
HP's purchase of Compaq ushered in an era where one could purchase HP stock at a 50% discount, and also indirectly led to the purchase of many political advertisements which subsidized many popular entertainment programs for public benefit.
No, I don't think it should be necessary to pay for updates after the manufacturer drops support. Back when I had an OG Droid, I updated the OS to a newer version using a bootloader unlocking hack and a community supported ROM (cyanogenmod). If a manufacturer doesn't want to release an OS update, they should unlock the phone so that the end-user can update it themselves if they wanted.
Standardized hardware means *not* playing to the lowest common denominator.
Quite the opposite in fact. Buying a console locks you in to whatever hardware the game corporation decides is good enough for the mass market.
PC gaming *is* more expensive, it's tolerated because PC's have other uses (like bragging on-line and hentai).
Again, this is by choice. Instead of being locked in to whatever hardware the game corporation picks for the current generation, you can buy better parts. If you are on a budget, you can get used parts for cheaper than consoles and still be able to play modern games at console level quality.
And, finally, designing a game to use a controller is not the same as band-aiding a game to use a controller. There is a lot more to play out there than games with a gun bobbing around in your PoV.
Again, as a PC gamer you have a choice in which type of control you want to use rather than being locked to whichever designs have been licensed out by the game corporation. There are plenty of games that can't be played well with a controller, like Civ V for example.
Total straw man argument. This is no more accurate than to say that the conservative plan to close the "loophole" is to replace all workers in every industry with cheaper overseas labor when possible and domestic machines where it is not possible until there is no one left in the US to be able to afford a Wendy's Hamburger.
Imagine a world where society can afford to have more artists and scientists because machines do all the grunt work.
The problem with the Wii was the lack of quality games coming out over the life-cycle of the device. By the time the Wii U had come out, it had been a couple of years since I had even turned on my Wii, let alone considered buying any new games.
In my younger years, during the golden age of Nintendo, it used to be a schoolyard agreement to temporarily trade game cartridges for a week so that you could try out a game that you didn't own. You could also go to a video rental store and rent a game for a few dollars.
This argument was addressed and debunked by Adam Smith when he invented economics. The argument that higher wages causes inflation isn't really true, because that cost is spread out over the production of the employee. Inflation is caused by more by companies taking excessive profits since the increased cost multiplies as their production goes down the supply chain.
I don't get what you're trying to argue here. Apple has always been targeting the premium market with their devices. If someone is budget minded and still wanted an Apple product, they go for a previous generation or second-hand device.
It looks like they are basically making it illegal to sell bitcoin for money within Russia. I can't imagine any legitimate businesses will accept the hassle, but hackers will likely still be able to exchange bitcoin for money overseas. Personally, I think the large delays in accepting bitcoin transfers is probably more harmful to its value as a currency, and this would likely not help any.
If I held any bitcoin, I would sell them now before they reach firesale value.
No it won't. No way, no how. Not in my lifetime. The liability concerns alone mean it won't happen. Yes the technology is getting better but that's not remotely the same thing as letting non-surgeons cut people.
If it allows surgeries to be done with less skilled labor (read cheaper), there will come a time sooner rather than later where the only surgery that's covered by insurance will be performed by machine. Specialists will all eventually all be replaced by robots because they are cheaper.
It seems like a good scheme for the banks to push all transactions through their credit cards to skim profit off every exchange. It basically becomes a stealth tax that gets pulled out of the local economy and goes to some foreign entity, based wherever tax laws favors a shelter.
While OSHA, workers comp, EPA, etc. minimum wage, etc. laws and regulations may have some sense, we have to realize that these same laws also reduce employment and push industries overseas and make many of our overseas competitors more competitive.
This is predicated on the false premise that it is necessary to have an open market with countries that have lax labor practices. If you levy a 2000% tariff on countries that exploit slave labor American labor can become competitive again. The same can be said about countries that do not have any emission controls.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you would never hear a Republican saying that a person that didn't obtain legal entry papers being murderers or rapists because those crimes are completely unrelated.
Nope, the politician may be wealthy but they must do favors for the owner class in order to raise funds for their re-election campaigns.
You're saying there's no choice like that status quo has no alternative. It could be made illegal to geo-restrict streaming from overseas in the spirit of free-trade agreements. If consumers could connect to streaming services in Asia that have lower fees, American companies would change their practices.
Might be true, but the parent was talking about spending $10,000 on a TV that would eventually spy on him. It might be possible to buy a high-end model that doesn't have smart TV features, but you are limiting your choices.
It's already the case that if you wanted to buy a UHD model.
If I'm remembering correctly, Verizon was subject to additional terms for Open access when they outbid all others for the C Block wireless spectrum.
Netflix doesn't offer sales within their iOS apps. You have to purchase your subscription on the website.
It's definitely true that some of the Clinton policies did directly contribute to the crash of 2008, chief among these being the tax incentives for executive pay that drove unprecedented income inequality, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, NAFTA, etc. The response from the GOP hasn't exactly been a reversal of these policies. If anything, they were extended and pushed forward. Policies favoring large companies resulted in consolidation and profit/expense min-maxing, not investment or job growth.
Uber drivers aren't employees. They are independent contractors.
Uber isn't a taxi service. It's a ride sharing program.
This program isn't abusing Uber's database. It's reposting public information.
HP's purchase of Compaq ushered in an era where one could purchase HP stock at a 50% discount, and also indirectly led to the purchase of many political advertisements which subsidized many popular entertainment programs for public benefit.
No, I don't think it should be necessary to pay for updates after the manufacturer drops support. Back when I had an OG Droid, I updated the OS to a newer version using a bootloader unlocking hack and a community supported ROM (cyanogenmod). If a manufacturer doesn't want to release an OS update, they should unlock the phone so that the end-user can update it themselves if they wanted.
Standardized hardware means *not* playing to the lowest common denominator.
Quite the opposite in fact. Buying a console locks you in to whatever hardware the game corporation decides is good enough for the mass market.
PC gaming *is* more expensive, it's tolerated because PC's have other uses (like bragging on-line and hentai).
Again, this is by choice. Instead of being locked in to whatever hardware the game corporation picks for the current generation, you can buy better parts. If you are on a budget, you can get used parts for cheaper than consoles and still be able to play modern games at console level quality.
And, finally, designing a game to use a controller is not the same as band-aiding a game to use a controller. There is a lot more to play out there than games with a gun bobbing around in your PoV.
Again, as a PC gamer you have a choice in which type of control you want to use rather than being locked to whichever designs have been licensed out by the game corporation. There are plenty of games that can't be played well with a controller, like Civ V for example.
No amount of legalese can get you around European privacy laws.
Total straw man argument. This is no more accurate than to say that the conservative plan to close the "loophole" is to replace all workers in every industry with cheaper overseas labor when possible and domestic machines where it is not possible until there is no one left in the US to be able to afford a Wendy's Hamburger.
Imagine a world where society can afford to have more artists and scientists because machines do all the grunt work.
It actually warns the user in the Terms of Service. Exact wording is quoted in the article.
The problem with the Wii was the lack of quality games coming out over the life-cycle of the device. By the time the Wii U had come out, it had been a couple of years since I had even turned on my Wii, let alone considered buying any new games.
In my younger years, during the golden age of Nintendo, it used to be a schoolyard agreement to temporarily trade game cartridges for a week so that you could try out a game that you didn't own. You could also go to a video rental store and rent a game for a few dollars.
This argument was addressed and debunked by Adam Smith when he invented economics. The argument that higher wages causes inflation isn't really true, because that cost is spread out over the production of the employee. Inflation is caused by more by companies taking excessive profits since the increased cost multiplies as their production goes down the supply chain.
I don't get what you're trying to argue here. Apple has always been targeting the premium market with their devices. If someone is budget minded and still wanted an Apple product, they go for a previous generation or second-hand device.
It looks like they are basically making it illegal to sell bitcoin for money within Russia. I can't imagine any legitimate businesses will accept the hassle, but hackers will likely still be able to exchange bitcoin for money overseas. Personally, I think the large delays in accepting bitcoin transfers is probably more harmful to its value as a currency, and this would likely not help any. If I held any bitcoin, I would sell them now before they reach firesale value.
No it won't. No way, no how. Not in my lifetime. The liability concerns alone mean it won't happen. Yes the technology is getting better but that's not remotely the same thing as letting non-surgeons cut people.
If it allows surgeries to be done with less skilled labor (read cheaper), there will come a time sooner rather than later where the only surgery that's covered by insurance will be performed by machine. Specialists will all eventually all be replaced by robots because they are cheaper.
Under the proposal in TFA, students will still take pre-algebra and algebra I.
I think you're confusing what it's actually worth and what the telecommunications cartel could manage to charge for it.
It seems like a good scheme for the banks to push all transactions through their credit cards to skim profit off every exchange. It basically becomes a stealth tax that gets pulled out of the local economy and goes to some foreign entity, based wherever tax laws favors a shelter.
While OSHA, workers comp, EPA, etc. minimum wage, etc. laws and regulations may have some sense, we have to realize that these same laws also reduce employment and push industries overseas and make many of our overseas competitors more competitive.
This is predicated on the false premise that it is necessary to have an open market with countries that have lax labor practices. If you levy a 2000% tariff on countries that exploit slave labor American labor can become competitive again. The same can be said about countries that do not have any emission controls.