Next they demonetized channels when people complained about the content. A lot of Men's rights and MGTOW challis were hit because of women who didn't want their content on Youtube. Firearms channels were hit people people demanding that sort of thing not be shown on Youtube.
Wow thats pretty entitled. It's not enough to have free speech. It's not even enough to be given a free platform on which to share your speech. No, you're going to whine if you're not actually PIAD by a big company to spread your speech.
They still like pop music but they're starting grow out of it as they discover intellectual pursuits and need their music to deliver something with some substance or give them something to think about, not just mindless pap about boy-meets-girl.
You sound like teenaged me. I DIDN'T LIKE pop music when I was a teenager because I was astonishingly pretentious and believed that NOT LIKING it made me superior to all the mindless masses who did like it.
90% of everything is crap and pop music being a strict subset of "everything" is no exception. But sometimes a catchy tune is good and you're not somehow less good because lots of other people like it too.
So capitalism is great at fostering individual musical expressions, but socialism helps foster lowest-common-denominator musical pablum. Got it.
(Of course the tiny problem with this theory is that Sweden isn't really socialist. "Sweden is not socialist -- because the government doesn't own the means of production. To see that, you have to go to Venezuela or Cuba or North Korea.")
The other tiny problem is that manufactured music is very popular in capitalist countries.
what is it with Trump supporters having trouble understanding simple words tht the rest of the world has no problem with.
A coment on a forum isn't news.
Oh actually on second thoughts I think you do understand the wods, you just want to discredit the entire concept so that it's harder for people to dismiss the fake news that supports your "worldview".
By whose standards is a total cop out of a position because our can be used to argue for or against literally appointment to the board.
I don't even know if you're agreeing or disagreeing with your point about churches. Should they be on the board (you could argue against disagreement saying unethical by who's standards? ) or off the board (you could argue against disagreement by saying ethical by who's standards).
Personally I think shilling for certain interests by trying to discredit science does not fall into the realm of ethical. And neither does trying to deny people rights because cherry picked bits of a religious text tells you it's ok to hate them.
Those are my standards. Plenty of people agree. Plenty disagree, but given that Google needs it's employees it does make sense that they're interested in at least appearing to share similar standards.
Wouldn't you want differing views on an ethics board?
Wanting diversity of opinion is not the same as taking opinions from literally everyone. Its a dumbass move to put someone blatantly unethical on an ethics board.
And also, lack of diversity of opinion is the first priority. A trans black lesbian in a wheelchair would get tossed out of the progressive clubhouse if they dared to voice a conservative opinion contrary to SJW orthodoxy.
Thats an odd way of saying that the clubhouse judges people for their mind, not their appearance, background, skin tone, gender or race.
Oh no, you suggested that the government might be good at something! No wonder someone modded you "-1 troll", I mean there mere suggestion that the government isn't utterly incompetent and corrupt is offensive and triggering.
Ha! yeah. Teh gubbmint si teh ebul is sort of an axiom around here. Challengeing it is an affront to freeze peach and must be downmodded.
I've written a tiny little bit for iOS. Just different rules.
A tiny bit, quite. Try developing an actual product. It's really hard to do CI remotely well when you can't get anything approaching decent servers. For android it's trivial: just spin up a bunch of VMs on your cloud or local platform of choice running any of the usual systems.
Sure it is. I've used Apples and Windows and before that MS-DOS for a long time. Your idea that you have some understanding of Apple's special evil merely shows you don't have an understanding of everyone elses.
I have a special place in my heart just for hating Apple. For you see they basically hate developers and are determined to make lives miserable for everyone who actually wants to do things professionally.
They won't let you compile on other machines and they won't sell decent servers.
There nothing "so-called" about it. A manufacturer produces a product, but sticks someone else's label on it.
[...]
This setup is fine for a retail company that doesn't own manufacturing facilities. They order a large bulk of goods at discount rate and sell cheaper than larger name-brands. As long as the products are fairly generic, there isn't a problem.
Even for quite specific stuff it isn't necessarily a problem. Some companies basically do that and do some rofessional sourcing and QA, the end result is you get the cheap products with a guarantee that it will work, not be unsafe etc for a markup.
Some of the professional supply companies (e.g. RS in the UK; no affiliation just a happy customer) so this and have their own brand of stuff. The result is (IMO) a trustworthy brand.
It's Amazon's web site, and they can run it how they want.
Actually no they can't: there are a lot of laws about what businesses can and can't do. funnily enough very very few people who advocate for fewer controls restricting behaviour also advocate for removal of limitd liability protection.
If that pisses people off so much, they should shop somewhere else.
But that's the roblem with monopoly abuse. I shop somewhere else. Enough people don't that Amaon can do a good deal of harm to the companies whose products I want.
This doesn't take out the human element of an employee being lazy, reckless, etc.
Hire better people. No crunch deadlines etc. You know a good way of hiring better people and having enough to avoid crunches?
More money just sounds like a government solution,
governments successfully run the things that are too hard for companies to run.
Are they not in the business of making money, not in the business of protecting data.
The CEO is personally heavily invested in not going to prison, moreso likely than maximising profit.
Also, I'm not going to invest in a company if it's #1 priority is not to make profit.
A company has no priority, there are only the priorities of the people that work there.
I like how people get called names for post their opinion.
Having an opinion is not a magical shield from criticism or censure. there's nothing virtuos about having an opinion. If you have a sufficiently stupid opinion, expect to get called an idiot. If you have a sufficiently obnoxius one, expect to get called something else.
No that's me taking what someone has said and working out what would actually happen when those "suggestions" reach the real world, something you're apparently not prepared to do.
Fuck it, I'm stopping reading. Why do I always end up having to stop reading your responses?
Because you're a bigoted fuckwit who can't deal with the truth.
Well fucking forgive me for assuming the bloke that looked like a bloke that you called a dude was actually a fucking bloke.
That, my man is the entire point. And yet you STILL don't seem to be able to grasp it.
1. That bloke was born female. 2. Laws about birth gender and bathrooms will force that man into the women's bathrooms 3. some people want to prevent those laws from being passed 4. The heritage fonudation wants to block that prevention.
the conclusion is that the Heritage foundation wants that man in women's bathrooms.
It doesn't matter what they claim to want, what they say they actually want is for that man to go in women't bathrooms.
You failing miserably to understand the implications for people that do have inane superstitious beliefs makes you a fuckwit, and lacking any empathy for them makes you a cunt.
oooh won't someone PLEASE think of the poor oppressors.
Nah fuck 'em. Your freedom ends where I start. I deeply understand the point of view where people feel they have the right to oppress others but I also feel those people deserve to be in the hell that most of them believe in for it.
You've shown no fucking evidence at all.
I pointed out several place. You jamming your fingers in your ears and yelling "lalalalala" is not the same as me not showing anything, no matter how loudly you sing.
You're pointing fingers and declaring they should be allowed no voice because they dare to challenge your religion
Oh I see now you're entering the realm of "just making shit up".
They have the right to whine about how gay people are opressing them by their very existence. They don't have the right to do anything about it.
So you're telling me a CEO who is sitting on top of a corporation, who is multiple layers of operations removed is to be held responsible for data leaks?
Yes.
What about the people who are supposed to be applying the privacy policies?
what about them? They ultimately take their orders from the CEO.
What about the engineers and technicians?
Fuck you you snivelling little shitstain.
You think the technicians with the low salaries right at the bottom are somehow when the "profits first" CEO is puttng on all the pressure to cut corners etc? Fucking corporate apoligist. Of course you want the little guy to get it in the neck while the big rich man gets off.
Screw you.
There's nothing in it for the CEO if there is a security breach.
Are you simple?
Yes, yes you are.
There's money in it for the CEO to ruthlessly cut expenses to maximise profits.
No, it's obvious from wht they say and how they say it.
Project much?
Wanker much?
You mean the definition that's been around for centuries?
And yet "arms" meant something different in 1776 from what ie means now, yet you don't see the heritage foundation promoting that little fact. Words change meaning.
That flat out contradicts the publication on their website that I linked.
Only if you have no brain. Actually think through to the LOGICAL conclusion of what they're proposing.
Perhaps you'd like to show some fucking evidence
And no eyes. The picture of that burly bearded dude in women's bathrooms? He was born female. Some people want to pass laws so he isn't forced to use women's bathrooms. The heritage foundation wants to prevent those laws bging passed.
Redefining marriage marginalizes those with traditional views
No it fucking doesn't.
and leads to the erosion of religious liberty.
Yeah some people want the "religious freedom" to harm others who don't believe in tehir god. I'm all in favour of utterly destroying that kind of religous freedom.
Bob & Joe getting married does not stop you worshiping whatever god or gods you so please. Claiming it does is you acting like a whiny little wanker so you can oppress them to get your jollies.
Jesus would be horrified.
Sorry but if they're so anti-gay and anti-seience and anti-science then it should have been easy for you to reference/em.
The loudest defenders of free speech are its worst defenders by far. It seems like they want it for only inconsequential edge-lording. Anything that might matter they complain about.
they're too cowardly to actually state their position insted they merely approach it from every angle but casting doubt, raising issues, obscuring the point and so on. Climate change might be up for debate but not by a bunch of jaqoffs who have an axe to grind.
but it at no point demonises or targets people based on their sexuality or gender
Ye they're too cowardly to actually commit in writing. Nonetheless they're advocating that places should be allowed to force this dude to use women's bathrooms:
If those laws are allowed then any dude can walk into a womens bathroom and then claim he was born female and he's legally required to. I can't think for the life of me why they'd do that unless they hate transgender eople so much that it's blinded them to reality.
yep start off by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. But it's more mealy mouthed insinuation and implication to grind their axe about zomg teh geys!111one
They do disagree with the legislation but do so by raising a large number of concerns about its implications.
Precisely. They have a regressive anti-seience, anti-gay agenda. They never state it but exist in a continual state of jaqing off, raising "concerns" and so on which all point one way.
Actual quotes from Kay Coles James Twitter feed (did you know she was a female? I did not):
So? My twitter feed could contain all sorts of claims that SuperKendall fucks goats. Doesn't make it true though. She's president of the anti-gay, anti-science heritage foundation.
Slashdot Mirror
Next they demonetized channels when people complained about the content. A lot of Men's rights and MGTOW challis were hit because of women who didn't want their content on Youtube. Firearms channels were hit people people demanding that sort of thing not be shown on Youtube.
Wow thats pretty entitled. It's not enough to have free speech. It's not even enough to be given a free platform on which to share your speech. No, you're going to whine if you're not actually PIAD by a big company to spread your speech.
They still like pop music but they're starting grow out of it as they discover intellectual pursuits and need their music to deliver something with some substance or give them something to think about, not just mindless pap about boy-meets-girl.
You sound like teenaged me. I DIDN'T LIKE pop music when I was a teenager because I was astonishingly pretentious and believed that NOT LIKING it made me superior to all the mindless masses who did like it.
90% of everything is crap and pop music being a strict subset of "everything" is no exception. But sometimes a catchy tune is good and you're not somehow less good because lots of other people like it too.
So capitalism is great at fostering individual musical expressions, but socialism helps foster lowest-common-denominator musical pablum. Got it.
(Of course the tiny problem with this theory is that Sweden isn't really socialist. "Sweden is not socialist -- because the government doesn't own the means of production. To see that, you have to go to Venezuela or Cuba or North Korea.")
The other tiny problem is that manufactured music is very popular in capitalist countries.
Yep, more Fake News.
what is it with Trump supporters having trouble understanding simple words tht the rest of the world has no problem with.
A coment on a forum isn't news.
Oh actually on second thoughts I think you do understand the wods, you just want to discredit the entire concept so that it's harder for people to dismiss the fake news that supports your "worldview".
By whose standards is a total cop out of a position because our can be used to argue for or against literally appointment to the board.
I don't even know if you're agreeing or disagreeing with your point about churches. Should they be on the board (you could argue against disagreement saying unethical by who's standards? ) or off the board (you could argue against disagreement by saying ethical by who's standards).
Personally I think shilling for certain interests by trying to discredit science does not fall into the realm of ethical. And neither does trying to deny people rights because cherry picked bits of a religious text tells you it's ok to hate them.
Those are my standards. Plenty of people agree. Plenty disagree, but given that Google needs it's employees it does make sense that they're interested in at least appearing to share similar standards.
Wouldn't you want differing views on an ethics board?
Wanting diversity of opinion is not the same as taking opinions from literally everyone. Its a dumbass move to put someone blatantly unethical on an ethics board.
And also, lack of diversity of opinion is the first priority. A trans black lesbian in a wheelchair would get tossed out of the progressive clubhouse if they dared to voice a conservative opinion contrary to SJW orthodoxy.
Thats an odd way of saying that the clubhouse judges people for their mind, not their appearance, background, skin tone, gender or race.
How can you possibly be against that?
Yes. SJW are wrongthink. Free speech is only for edgelords.
Oh no, you suggested that the government might be good at something! No wonder someone modded you "-1 troll", I mean there mere suggestion that the government isn't utterly incompetent and corrupt is offensive and triggering.
Ha! yeah. Teh gubbmint si teh ebul is sort of an axiom around here. Challengeing it is an affront to freeze peach and must be downmodded.
I've written a tiny little bit for iOS. Just different rules.
A tiny bit, quite. Try developing an actual product. It's really hard to do CI remotely well when you can't get anything approaching decent servers. For android it's trivial: just spin up a bunch of VMs on your cloud or local platform of choice running any of the usual systems.
For apple: fuck you.
How hard is it to tether to your phone??
For more it's a swipe and a press top enable a hotspot, then my laptop just connects. Much more convenient to use a desktop browser than a phone.
Sure it is. I've used Apples and Windows and before that MS-DOS for a long time. Your idea that you have some understanding of Apple's special evil merely shows you don't have an understanding of everyone elses.
I have a special place in my heart just for hating Apple. For you see they basically hate developers and are determined to make lives miserable for everyone who actually wants to do things professionally.
They won't let you compile on other machines and they won't sell decent servers.
There's a special place in hell for Apple, this hell to be precise http://smbc-comics.com/comic/p...
Plus their adverts are insufferable pretentious.
There nothing "so-called" about it. A manufacturer produces a product, but sticks someone else's label on it.
[...]
This setup is fine for a retail company that doesn't own manufacturing facilities. They order a large bulk of goods at discount rate and sell cheaper than larger name-brands. As long as the products are fairly generic, there isn't a problem.
Even for quite specific stuff it isn't necessarily a problem. Some companies basically do that and do some rofessional sourcing and QA, the end result is you get the cheap products with a guarantee that it will work, not be unsafe etc for a markup.
Some of the professional supply companies (e.g. RS in the UK; no affiliation just a happy customer) so this and have their own brand of stuff. The result is (IMO) a trustworthy brand.
It's Amazon's web site, and they can run it how they want.
Actually no they can't: there are a lot of laws about what businesses can and can't do. funnily enough very very few people who advocate for fewer controls restricting behaviour also advocate for removal of limitd liability protection.
If that pisses people off so much, they should shop somewhere else.
But that's the roblem with monopoly abuse. I shop somewhere else. Enough people don't that Amaon can do a good deal of harm to the companies whose products I want.
Ah, just give the security group more money.
Yes.
This doesn't take out the human element of an employee being lazy, reckless, etc.
Hire better people. No crunch deadlines etc. You know a good way of hiring better people and having enough to avoid crunches?
More money just sounds like a government solution,
governments successfully run the things that are too hard for companies to run.
Are they not in the business of making money, not in the business of protecting data.
The CEO is personally heavily invested in not going to prison, moreso likely than maximising profit.
Also, I'm not going to invest in a company if it's #1 priority is not to make profit.
A company has no priority, there are only the priorities of the people that work there.
I like how people get called names for post their opinion.
Having an opinion is not a magical shield from criticism or censure. there's nothing virtuos about having an opinion. If you have a sufficiently stupid opinion, expect to get called an idiot. If you have a sufficiently obnoxius one, expect to get called something else.
No, you did not.
You: [fingers in ears] lalalalalala
No.
Yes.
That's you reading between the lines
No that's me taking what someone has said and working out what would actually happen when those "suggestions" reach the real world, something you're apparently not prepared to do.
Fuck it, I'm stopping reading. Why do I always end up having to stop reading your responses?
Because you're a bigoted fuckwit who can't deal with the truth.
Apparently several people didn't get your joke.
Sadly not it seems. There are a lot of people here very thin on a sense of humour.
Actually the other classic anti-EV argument, the off-grid remote cabin with no possibility of solar or wind power, is actually a thing in Norway too.
That can't work. Some dude on the internet told me it couldn't.
Wow someone has some real anger issues,
Not really, I'm just tired of shitheads advocating to fuck over the people with the least power. Congrats, you're one of those shitheads.
3) The CEO goes to jail, perhaps their family is destroyed, etc. That will show them.
Yes, the CEO put profits above user data. That's a crime and he went to prison.
4) Company XYZ still has the same people in charge of security. The ones who were responsible for the security holes still work there.
did the CEO increase security's budget by enough? Nope. So he's the one ultimately at fault.
But by golly, we got that CEO. That will learn them. /em.
Yeah it will. te next slew of CEOs will think "hmm maybe I could make a bit lees money and NOT got to prison. How about that?"
And then fund security properly.
Problem.
solved.
Well fucking forgive me for assuming the bloke that looked like a bloke that you called a dude was actually a fucking bloke.
That, my man is the entire point. And yet you STILL don't seem to be able to grasp it.
1. That bloke was born female.
2. Laws about birth gender and bathrooms will force that man into the women's bathrooms
3. some people want to prevent those laws from being passed
4. The heritage fonudation wants to block that prevention.
the conclusion is that the Heritage foundation wants that man in women's bathrooms.
It doesn't matter what they claim to want, what they say they actually want is for that man to go in women't bathrooms.
You failing miserably to understand the implications for people that do have inane superstitious beliefs makes you a fuckwit, and lacking any empathy for them makes you a cunt.
oooh won't someone PLEASE think of the poor oppressors.
Nah fuck 'em. Your freedom ends where I start. I deeply understand the point of view where people feel they have the right to oppress others but I also feel those people deserve to be in the hell that most of them believe in for it.
You've shown no fucking evidence at all.
I pointed out several place. You jamming your fingers in your ears and yelling "lalalalala" is not the same as me not showing anything, no matter how loudly you sing.
You're pointing fingers and declaring they should be allowed no voice because they dare to challenge your religion
Oh I see now you're entering the realm of "just making shit up".
They have the right to whine about how gay people are opressing them by their very existence. They don't have the right to do anything about it.
So you're telling me a CEO who is sitting on top of a corporation, who is multiple layers of operations removed is to be held responsible for data leaks?
Yes.
What about the people who are supposed to be applying the privacy policies?
what about them? They ultimately take their orders from the CEO.
What about the engineers and technicians?
Fuck you you snivelling little shitstain.
You think the technicians with the low salaries right at the bottom are somehow when the "profits first" CEO is puttng on all the pressure to cut corners etc? Fucking corporate apoligist. Of course you want the little guy to get it in the neck while the big rich man gets off.
Screw you.
There's nothing in it for the CEO if there is a security breach.
Are you simple?
Yes, yes you are.
There's money in it for the CEO to ruthlessly cut expenses to maximise profits.
So you assume it.
No, it's obvious from wht they say and how they say it.
Project much?
Wanker much?
You mean the definition that's been around for centuries?
And yet "arms" meant something different in 1776 from what ie means now, yet you don't see the heritage foundation promoting that little fact. Words change meaning.
That flat out contradicts the publication on their website that I linked.
Only if you have no brain. Actually think through to the LOGICAL conclusion of what they're proposing.
Perhaps you'd like to show some fucking evidence
And no eyes. The picture of that burly bearded dude in women's bathrooms? He was born female. Some people want to pass laws so he isn't forced to use women's bathrooms. The heritage foundation wants to prevent those laws bging passed.
Redefining marriage marginalizes those with traditional views
No it fucking doesn't.
and leads to the erosion of religious liberty.
Yeah some people want the "religious freedom" to harm others who don't believe in tehir god. I'm all in favour of utterly destroying that kind of religous freedom.
Bob & Joe getting married does not stop you worshiping whatever god or gods you so please. Claiming it does is you acting like a whiny little wanker so you can oppress them to get your jollies.
Jesus would be horrified.
Sorry but if they're so anti-gay and anti-seience and anti-science then it should have been easy for you to reference /em.
I did. You ignored it.
The loudest defenders of free speech are its worst defenders by far. It seems like they want it for only inconsequential edge-lording. Anything that might matter they complain about.
To me, "marriage" is a religious thing...and the govt. really doesn't need to be in that business.
Yes, let's ignore how reality is right now and aim for lofty goals while conveniently continuing to deny rights to eople in the mean time.
If the government recognises marriages (it does) then it should recognise them for gay coules as well.
What's anti-gay and anti-science about the Heritage Foundation?
seriously?
Well here:s a bunch of mealy-mouthed JAQing off about global warming:
https://www.heritage.org/envir...
they're too cowardly to actually state their position insted they merely approach it from every angle but casting doubt, raising issues, obscuring the point and so on. Climate change might be up for debate but not by a bunch of jaqoffs who have an axe to grind.
but it at no point demonises or targets people based on their sexuality or gender
Ye they're too cowardly to actually commit in writing. Nonetheless they're advocating that places should be allowed to force this dude to use women's bathrooms:
https://i.upworthy.com/nugget/...
If those laws are allowed then any dude can walk into a womens bathroom and then claim he was born female and he's legally required to. I can't think for the life of me why they'd do that unless they hate transgender eople so much that it's blinded them to reality.
Oh and some anti gay:
https://www.heritage.org/marri...
yep start off by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. But it's more mealy mouthed insinuation and implication to grind their axe about zomg teh geys!111one
They do disagree with the legislation but do so by raising a large number of concerns about its implications.
Precisely. They have a regressive anti-seience, anti-gay agenda. They never state it but exist in a continual state of jaqing off, raising "concerns" and so on which all point one way.
Actual quotes from Kay Coles James Twitter feed (did you know she was a female? I did not):
So? My twitter feed could contain all sorts of claims that SuperKendall fucks goats. Doesn't make it true though. She's president of the anti-gay, anti-science heritage foundation.