You sell advertising. It's not always by using non-personally identifying information. That's the difference in this instance. *shrug*
I don't know why people think companies are always making shit up. Why would they "get around to it?" If they were doing it before without telling users, they'd still be doing it without telling users.
Well, it was unlimited while they allowed the grandfathered people on the plan to use it. Now that they're telling them they have to switch plans, to a plan they don't call unlimited, which will not be unlimited. I'm not sure you understand what false advertising means.
Not that he's dumb, but Penn Jillette has empowered manchildren in a pretty fun way. Libertarians love him, because he's a libertarian, but this is the same block who is so quick to cut down celebrities who express political views. In other words, you're getting your talking points from a financially successful magician.
Life isn't ideal. People know this. Maladjusted adults think there's some sweet action-movie style alternative, as opposed to the kind of domestic war power vacuum ad-nauseum that happens in places all around the world. So again, do you want to vote for the candidate that is most likely to preserve your way of life, even if you feel you've been wronged so badly by the system? Or the candidate that espouses the kind of thing you really want to hear because he knows you're not worldly enough to know it's just a Disney movie?
There is a litany of other countries with massive problems with human rights. Look at the world for human rights shitshows, and the common thread is system of government, not the name of the religion on the box.
His Empire? Trump would be richer if he took the money he had inhereted and just put it in a medium risk don't-touch fund. The man has made himself less poor than he could have been based on where he started. The people who think he's a made man simply don't know how money works to begin with, which is why he appeals so much to the lower class.
Translation: unemployable low level IT crybabies who fell behind and can't find a job in a field that is hilariously easy to find work in blame everything on the Visa boogeyman.
Predictably, "experimental art" are trigger words for most of the crowd here. Wannabe programmers have a perfect target in artists against whom to direct their own insecurities regarding social acceptance and worth.
If you're unable to cultivate an extremely basic set of working knowledge regarding national and international news and politics, it's not that you're too busy, it's that you choose not to know these things. Willful ignorance is still ignorance.
You can't discriminate based on race, religion, sexual preference. You can discriminate based on whether or not somebody decides to wear a shirt. This is the way it is because at large, we deem it to be fair and prevent people from being discriminated against based on characteristics that are fundamental to living as they want or were born.
We don't deem being able to live your entire life without wearing a shirt to be fundamental to living your life freely. Pretty fucking simple.
The voters are responsible for it. The "my government is the enemy" mentality basically absolves them by default. Nobody rightly takes actual issues with abuse of power seriously at this point, because according to the electorate, everything they do is wrong.
Which I suppose would be fine if gamblers didn't steal from friends and family to feed their vulnerabilities? Gambling isn't just something that only affects those who make the "adult" decision to gamble.
How can you propose a system to hold politicians accountable for failure to deliver on platform goals unless they have complete dictatorial control over implementation? "Well, then, they shouldn't promise anything.. " I hear you say. Well, sure, under such a system, politicians would be foolish to propose improving or changing anything. Would that make you happier? Life is a lot more complicated than you wish it was. In general, if *you* know that proposed plans are just plans, and *I* know proposed plans are just plans, then we can both make personal judgement on the feasibility and likelihood of a candidate being able (or willing) to deliver on them and vote accordingly. I think it's reasonable to assume that most people understand that a campaign promise isn't a legally binding blood pact.
Check the difference in performance between compile once and jit compiled languages. A bunch of people here sound like theyre repeating what was true 15 years ago in very different conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
Which part of "The Israeli tech company will continue to support and maintain current Tesla products" is complicated?
You sell advertising. It's not always by using non-personally identifying information. That's the difference in this instance. *shrug*
I don't know why people think companies are always making shit up. Why would they "get around to it?" If they were doing it before without telling users, they'd still be doing it without telling users.
Well, it was unlimited while they allowed the grandfathered people on the plan to use it. Now that they're telling them they have to switch plans, to a plan they don't call unlimited, which will not be unlimited. I'm not sure you understand what false advertising means.
If any warrant can be trumped up, the logical end point is that you don't believe in warrants to begin with.
Not that he's dumb, but Penn Jillette has empowered manchildren in a pretty fun way. Libertarians love him, because he's a libertarian, but this is the same block who is so quick to cut down celebrities who express political views. In other words, you're getting your talking points from a financially successful magician.
Life isn't ideal. People know this. Maladjusted adults think there's some sweet action-movie style alternative, as opposed to the kind of domestic war power vacuum ad-nauseum that happens in places all around the world. So again, do you want to vote for the candidate that is most likely to preserve your way of life, even if you feel you've been wronged so badly by the system? Or the candidate that espouses the kind of thing you really want to hear because he knows you're not worldly enough to know it's just a Disney movie?
A lot of countries seem to manage in the name of other religions, Christianity included.
There is a litany of other countries with massive problems with human rights. Look at the world for human rights shitshows, and the common thread is system of government, not the name of the religion on the box.
s/less poor/more poor/ of course
His Empire? Trump would be richer if he took the money he had inhereted and just put it in a medium risk don't-touch fund. The man has made himself less poor than he could have been based on where he started. The people who think he's a made man simply don't know how money works to begin with, which is why he appeals so much to the lower class.
I can understand why you'd believe that if you've never seen politics above the level of what's going on among your fellow staff at Bestbuy.
Translation: unemployable low level IT crybabies who fell behind and can't find a job in a field that is hilariously easy to find work in blame everything on the Visa boogeyman.
One problem: Trump's not going to help with that.
Predictably, "experimental art" are trigger words for most of the crowd here. Wannabe programmers have a perfect target in artists against whom to direct their own insecurities regarding social acceptance and worth.
"I'll drop you a line" has been in the common vernacular for decades. Never-mind it's use in espionage (eg: "wheres the drop")
You know exactly what it means, it's not new, and frankly you're more interested in being cranky than anything else.
If you're unable to cultivate an extremely basic set of working knowledge regarding national and international news and politics, it's not that you're too busy, it's that you choose not to know these things. Willful ignorance is still ignorance.
You can't discriminate based on race, religion, sexual preference. You can discriminate based on whether or not somebody decides to wear a shirt. This is the way it is because at large, we deem it to be fair and prevent people from being discriminated against based on characteristics that are fundamental to living as they want or were born.
We don't deem being able to live your entire life without wearing a shirt to be fundamental to living your life freely. Pretty fucking simple.
I was unaware that most tyrants didn't surround themselves with what amounts to a hydra.
I don't. I mean, I take off my shoes, but do you get nudie scanned and freedom-groped? I'm hardly a congressperson.
The voters are responsible for it. The "my government is the enemy" mentality basically absolves them by default. Nobody rightly takes actual issues with abuse of power seriously at this point, because according to the electorate, everything they do is wrong.
Which I suppose would be fine if gamblers didn't steal from friends and family to feed their vulnerabilities? Gambling isn't just something that only affects those who make the "adult" decision to gamble.
How can you propose a system to hold politicians accountable for failure to deliver on platform goals unless they have complete dictatorial control over implementation? "Well, then, they shouldn't promise anything .. " I hear you say. Well, sure, under such a system, politicians would be foolish to propose improving or changing anything. Would that make you happier? Life is a lot more complicated than you wish it was. In general, if *you* know that proposed plans are just plans, and *I* know proposed plans are just plans, then we can both make personal judgement on the feasibility and likelihood of a candidate being able (or willing) to deliver on them and vote accordingly. I think it's reasonable to assume that most people understand that a campaign promise isn't a legally binding blood pact.
http://blog.carlesmateo.com/20...
Check the difference in performance between compile once and jit compiled languages. A bunch of people here sound like theyre repeating what was true 15 years ago in very different conditions.
Good thing you're so above it all.
You can do all of this, already. Kinda makes you wonder, what else are you wrong about?
By your logic, a car is not designed to move people from one location to another.