Minimum wage legislation didn't come in in the UK till 1998. Prior to that business leaders were saying that it would be disastrous for the economy; that there would be massive bankruptcies as a result; there would be mass unemployment; that some industries would completely fail.
In actual fact after the minimum wage came in, unemployment reduced, and there was not only no mass bankruptcies, AFAIK no one ever identified a single company that went bankrupt as a result of the introduction of the minimum wage.
The one thing that strikes me these days, is the way how the exact same people who solved the problems you are talking about - DDT, leaded gasoline, smog etc. - are still demonized and portait as plotting to destroy the earth.
They didn't solve those problems, they created them. They created the polluting products. DDT, leaded gasoline, cigarettes, CFC aerosols etc. Government regulation stopped them from manufacturing those polluting products anymore, or at least cut down on them. Without the government regulation they would have kept on polluting, and more so every year.
It's exactly the same now. They won't fix their polluting till government regulation makes them do so. And they are putting that government regulation off for as long as possible by denying science, just as they did before.
If there are people still around who say that the earth is flat, not round. What's a suitable term for them? Obviously there's a lot of choices, but a "Round Earth Denier" is certainly one of them. And an accurate one.
What about people that deny that tobacco smoke is carcinogenic? It's fair enough to call them deniers too, yes?
And sure enough, we do call people that say that the Nazi holocaust never happened "Holocaust Deniers".
The reason is that we know all these things are true. And for whatever reason, these people that are saying the opposite are denying the truth.
And it's exactly the same with AGW. The greenhouse effect is simple physics. The amount of CO2 released to the atmosphere by man is a matter of record, as is the increased concentration in the atmosphere. That predicts warming. And the warming trend has been measured, over and over again in many ways. It's beyond question that AGW exists. Only it's extent and the local effects are debatable.
So, just as with the other three, anyone who says AGW doesn't exist can indeed truthfully be referred to as a "denier".
I speculate that the reason you're uncomfortable with it is not to do with science at all, but to do with your politics. You find that the people on the other side of the political spectrum from you have no doubt about AGW. But that people who are your natural allies are where the deniers come from. That's obviously going to make you uneasy about it.
True, but the people who don't look at the evidence or think about the data are in the majority. They get all their information from these guys. They vote, too.
They're usually called "useful idiots". They're not getting paid to deny science. They are persuaded by the people that are paid, and then uncritically repeat it.
Well it's more sponsored speech than free speech isn't it.
Surely the free speech ideal is about letting anyone say what they want to say. It weakens it rather a lot when it's a small minority of people buying the speech of many.
It's the classic difference between real grassroots opinions, and astroturf.
Allow me to refer you to the many charts released recently that allow humans to easily discern there has been no global warming in the past decade.
Those are weather charts, rather than climate charts. Show me anything less than 30 years and I laugh in their faces.
I'd be suspicious of Musk if he only showed data for part of the trip. But he doesn't, it's all there.
The only place I think he overreached is when he made the accusation of driving round the car park to waste more battery. The explanation that it was a service area, and he was driving round to find the charger seems more likely.
If you like. But that still doesn't make the developer the merchant. Microsoft isn't the merchant if I buy Windows from Staples. Staples is. They're the ones that take the money and they are the ones that give me the box.
Google Play takes the money and delivers the electronic download. They are the merchant.
If a time remaining display ends up fluctuating between (say) 1 minute and 1 hour depending on what step the process is on, the user gets the impression that the estimation is uselessly inaccurate.
When a support request comes in, you can ask "what email address do you use for your Google Play account" and move on from there.
Ouch! What a shitty response to a support question. You certainly wouldn't get a good review from me.
Tell that to Redhat or any number of open-source companies that survive on charging for support on their otherwise free product.
Which is not what you are doing. You are selling your app. You're not selling support. Support for you should be public relations. And it sounds like you're failing at it. If indeed you are a developer - maybe you're not and you're just guessing.
That's the first I've heard of DDG being a Bing intermediary.
Bing is just one of their many sources. And you're right it doesn't matter because whatever DDG knows about you isn't passed on. And DDG don't know much about you because one of their USPs is that they don't track you.
If you liked Google Search back in the day, when Google actually tried not to be evil (about a dozen years ago). DDG gives you that feel.
Your credit card company knows what you buy and where you live.
We know that a creditor needs to know the name and address of the person that they are lending to. And we consciously accept that when we apply for a card.
The checkout chick at Woolies/Kmart/Whatever can know your name when you hand over the card.
When's the last time you handed over a card? The card goes in a reader, and it's between you and the card company. Even if she did sneak a peek at the name, she's not writing it down and she doesn't know your address.
eBay has a record of everything you've purchased (and when, and from whom...). Anyone at all you've dealt with could be storing your previous address.
Sure. We've dealt directly with them. We've given them our addresses. Of course they have them. The problem here is passing the addresses on to third parties. That is the privacy violation.
...and don't even get me started on store loyalty cards!
Indeed. I've never heard of anyone who respects their privacy having one. So what's your point?
Is the device detail known to to App Store? Isn't an app bought for an account rather than a particular device?
I'm thinking it's app usage data that's needed, not purchase data.
Have you taken a look at Flurry, and the other analytics packages? I must admit I haven't got round to looking closely yet, so I'm not sure whether there's a real or perceived negative privacy implication to it.
This is all true. However a significant proportion of the British population still have their real opinions of cars formed by the show.
It rather like "Till Death Us Do Part". A satire of a small minded xenophobic bigot. However many of the viewers didn't get it, and idolised Alf Garnet, and repeated his small minded rants oblivious to the satirical content.
Absolutely. It's a comedy, but because it uses real cars. It makes assertions about cars that are sometimes true, and sometimes just for comic effect. It assumes that people realise which parts are comedy and which are not, but experience shows that the audience isn't always able to tell. It's a broken format.
BUT it's also very successfully sold around the world by the BBC, making it their most financially profitable show. So despite the fact that they should change it or scrap it, they won't.
Same reason the Sun won't ever improve the level of their "journalism".
Right. And if only someone would make a good caravan, they'd suddenly start speaking well of caravans.
No. Their hatred of all things environmental is a part of the show, and part of Clarksons personal psyche. It's not a rational position. It started as their personal biases, and it;s now one of their punchlines.
Repeat after me: Top Gear is a comedy show. It's a spoof of a car review show. It's not a real car review show.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking the exact same thing.
Minimum wage legislation didn't come in in the UK till 1998. Prior to that business leaders were saying that it would be disastrous for the economy; that there would be massive bankruptcies as a result; there would be mass unemployment; that some industries would completely fail.
In actual fact after the minimum wage came in, unemployment reduced, and there was not only no mass bankruptcies, AFAIK no one ever identified a single company that went bankrupt as a result of the introduction of the minimum wage.
The one thing that strikes me these days, is the way how the exact same people who solved the problems you are talking about - DDT, leaded gasoline, smog etc. - are still demonized and portait as plotting to destroy the earth.
They didn't solve those problems, they created them. They created the polluting products. DDT, leaded gasoline, cigarettes, CFC aerosols etc. Government regulation stopped them from manufacturing those polluting products anymore, or at least cut down on them. Without the government regulation they would have kept on polluting, and more so every year.
It's exactly the same now. They won't fix their polluting till government regulation makes them do so. And they are putting that government regulation off for as long as possible by denying science, just as they did before.
If there are people still around who say that the earth is flat, not round. What's a suitable term for them? Obviously there's a lot of choices, but a "Round Earth Denier" is certainly one of them. And an accurate one.
What about people that deny that tobacco smoke is carcinogenic? It's fair enough to call them deniers too, yes?
And sure enough, we do call people that say that the Nazi holocaust never happened "Holocaust Deniers".
The reason is that we know all these things are true. And for whatever reason, these people that are saying the opposite are denying the truth.
And it's exactly the same with AGW. The greenhouse effect is simple physics. The amount of CO2 released to the atmosphere by man is a matter of record, as is the increased concentration in the atmosphere. That predicts warming. And the warming trend has been measured, over and over again in many ways. It's beyond question that AGW exists. Only it's extent and the local effects are debatable.
So, just as with the other three, anyone who says AGW doesn't exist can indeed truthfully be referred to as a "denier".
I speculate that the reason you're uncomfortable with it is not to do with science at all, but to do with your politics. You find that the people on the other side of the political spectrum from you have no doubt about AGW. But that people who are your natural allies are where the deniers come from. That's obviously going to make you uneasy about it.
True, but the people who don't look at the evidence or think about the data are in the majority. They get all their information from these guys. They vote, too.
They're usually called "useful idiots". They're not getting paid to deny science. They are persuaded by the people that are paid, and then uncritically repeat it.
Well it's more sponsored speech than free speech isn't it.
Surely the free speech ideal is about letting anyone say what they want to say. It weakens it rather a lot when it's a small minority of people buying the speech of many.
It's the classic difference between real grassroots opinions, and astroturf.
Copying Apple is becoming a habit.
Everywhere I look, the use of iPhone is decreasing.
Which country is it that you are looking in? Because in the US, iOS market share has never been higher, and is in fact >50%.
And of course unit sales are always up YOY.
You have an IQ lower than 100. In my opinion we need an entrance test to post here.
Come no tehcyder, you're not that stupid. And I would hope a NYT reporter isn't either.
Who, apart for Clarkson, said the fuse had anything to do with the brakes? The fuse went whilst the car was being recharged.
Why are you finding it so hard to accept a journalist lied? It's hardly the first time.
What he said is contrary to the data. So one of them is lying.
Allow me to refer you to the many charts released recently that allow humans to easily discern there has been no global warming in the past decade.
Those are weather charts, rather than climate charts. Show me anything less than 30 years and I laugh in their faces.
I'd be suspicious of Musk if he only showed data for part of the trip. But he doesn't, it's all there.
The only place I think he overreached is when he made the accusation of driving round the car park to waste more battery. The explanation that it was a service area, and he was driving round to find the charger seems more likely.
If you like. But that still doesn't make the developer the merchant. Microsoft isn't the merchant if I buy Windows from Staples. Staples is. They're the ones that take the money and they are the ones that give me the box.
Google Play takes the money and delivers the electronic download. They are the merchant.
Blaming a TV show for idiots being idiots is like accepting that suing McDonald's for serving hot coffee is right.
It was right. If you think it was wrong, you haven't looked at the facts of the case.
If a time remaining display ends up fluctuating between (say) 1 minute and 1 hour depending on what step the process is on, the user gets the impression that the estimation is uselessly inaccurate.
So a well written one won't do that.
When a support request comes in, you can ask "what email address do you use for your Google Play account" and move on from there.
Ouch! What a shitty response to a support question. You certainly wouldn't get a good review from me.
Tell that to Redhat or any number of open-source companies that survive on charging for support on their otherwise free product.
Which is not what you are doing. You are selling your app. You're not selling support. Support for you should be public relations. And it sounds like you're failing at it. If indeed you are a developer - maybe you're not and you're just guessing.
That's the first I've heard of DDG being a Bing intermediary.
Bing is just one of their many sources. And you're right it doesn't matter because whatever DDG knows about you isn't passed on. And DDG don't know much about you because one of their USPs is that they don't track you.
If you liked Google Search back in the day, when Google actually tried not to be evil (about a dozen years ago). DDG gives you that feel.
Does that mean that people who sell apps on Amazon or eBay aren't merchants either?
Who sends the app to the user? They're the merchant.
You're the one who seems not to understand. The middle man doesn't matter. If I am making a transaction with a customer, I am a merchant.
Are you sending the app to the user? If not then no, you are not the merchant. You are the supplier.
Your credit card company knows what you buy and where you live.
We know that a creditor needs to know the name and address of the person that they are lending to. And we consciously accept that when we apply for a card.
The checkout chick at Woolies/Kmart/Whatever can know your name when you hand over the card.
When's the last time you handed over a card? The card goes in a reader, and it's between you and the card company. Even if she did sneak a peek at the name, she's not writing it down and she doesn't know your address.
eBay has a record of everything you've purchased (and when, and from whom...). Anyone at all you've dealt with could be storing your previous address.
Sure. We've dealt directly with them. We've given them our addresses. Of course they have them. The problem here is passing the addresses on to third parties. That is the privacy violation.
...and don't even get me started on store loyalty cards!
Indeed. I've never heard of anyone who respects their privacy having one. So what's your point?
Need I go on?
You've probably said more than enough already.
Is the device detail known to to App Store? Isn't an app bought for an account rather than a particular device?
I'm thinking it's app usage data that's needed, not purchase data.
Have you taken a look at Flurry, and the other analytics packages? I must admit I haven't got round to looking closely yet, so I'm not sure whether there's a real or perceived negative privacy implication to it.
Sounds like a pain. Apple do all that for you with their store.
This is all true. However a significant proportion of the British population still have their real opinions of cars formed by the show.
It rather like "Till Death Us Do Part". A satire of a small minded xenophobic bigot. However many of the viewers didn't get it, and idolised Alf Garnet, and repeated his small minded rants oblivious to the satirical content.
Absolutely. It's a comedy, but because it uses real cars. It makes assertions about cars that are sometimes true, and sometimes just for comic effect. It assumes that people realise which parts are comedy and which are not, but experience shows that the audience isn't always able to tell. It's a broken format.
BUT it's also very successfully sold around the world by the BBC, making it their most financially profitable show. So despite the fact that they should change it or scrap it, they won't.
Same reason the Sun won't ever improve the level of their "journalism".
Right. And if only someone would make a good caravan, they'd suddenly start speaking well of caravans.
No. Their hatred of all things environmental is a part of the show, and part of Clarksons personal psyche. It's not a rational position. It started as their personal biases, and it;s now one of their punchlines.
Repeat after me: Top Gear is a comedy show. It's a spoof of a car review show. It's not a real car review show.
Indeed, I can't say I'm surprised. Google has no respect for privacy, and that's the reason I don't use any of their products any more.