It's not "too many streaming services", it's "too much fragmentation". Having more places to shop is always a good thing, having content creators say "we only sell here" is not. If the content you want to watch is not available where you watch, send a message to the content creator that they can go f*** themselves.
Except, the Constitution doesn't permit the federal government making the rules to begin with, let alone the executive branch making what is effectively unilateral legislation. So, yes. Someone in the federal government followed the rules for the first time in decades.
How much you pay doesn't equal it's value. A seller could sell a 24 karat gold bar weighing 1 kg for $5, does that mean that the gold bar is valued at $5? No, its value is currently just over 38k USD.
Not accurate... the electoral college keeps all states relevant. If a candidate focuses their attention on LA, SF, Chicago, and NY they won't win an electoral vote election.... but a popular vote election is a completely different story. The Electoral College was designed to keep all states relevant.. and predates the concept of political parties. Electoral college doesn't keep the Republican and Democratic Parties relevant, the parties themselves manipulate law keeping any other voice out.
Not in my state they don't... you get one from the state at cost to the taxpayers upon registering to vote.. and you take it with you to the polls. Even when the talk includes the cost being paid for by the state, the average Democrat labels it as racist. You need ID to buy cars, cigarettes, alcohol, guns, etc. and it's not racist.. but it's racist to require one to vote?
I'm only happy that Trump won because it means Hillary didn't... but I'm equally unhappy with a Trump presidency. The two parties no longer represent the people of this countries or the values this nation was founded on... but fucking retards think there are only two candidates they can vote for... so they keep voting for the lesser evil hoping to break this cycle of shit.
No snow, it has been in the 70s to low 80s. And the cold isn't that bad.. especially just north of Mat-Su on the other side of the mountain range. It's a dry, windless cold... so it actually feels warmer.
No, they shouldn't. It's not their responsibility. Target doesn't put me in contact with the maker of ZYX product. If it isn't a concern that they can address, they'll tell me to contact the manufacturer. If the person buying the product can't figure out who the maker is, then they shouldn't be buying it... it doesn't matter WHERE you are buying from... Ebay, Amazon, Walmart, Target... if you can't figure out who produced it, then don't buy it and keep looking. If you end up buying crap because you didn't look, then that is YOUR fault, not the marketplace's. The marketplace isn't responsible for you buying crap products, that was your choice from the very beginning. The only people pushing costs onto the court system is the customer in this case, Amazon's only obligation is to distribute recall notices, take back recalled items to return to the manufacturer, and take back defective merchandise sold by them to return back to the company, destroy or whatever else so long as it is within the return policy's time. Outside of that, it is not any marketplace's responsibility, whether it be Target or Amazon.
The customer messed up here, they bought a very cheap product and want someone else to pay because they didn't want to do the legwork necessary both before and after the purchase. It is up to the consumer to make good choices, not Amazon nor the Government's job to babysit you and make sure you make good choices and then foot the bill when you don't.
Standard of living is opinionated. A person who values freedom and being able to keep the fruit of their labor would say the standard of living pre-FDR is significantly better, while someone else who values government dependence and "free" shit could say standard of living post-FDR is better. But since I never discussed standard of living, and made a factual statement that we haven't had capitalism since FDR, and capitalism did do well pre-FDR is actually factual. Technology changes, compared to a majority of the world, our standard of living was much better. Just because technology kept changing after FDR doesn't invalidate the period before FDR.
So a person who is successful is published? Then why be successful knowing you'll be punished. Amazing logic there! Work hard so we can steal more from you! Very inline with the American dream/sarcasm
And companies exist to make a profit. It's needed for inventory building, expansion, employee hiring, R&D, rainy day funds, etc. You take away from that profit, what do they do? Companies exist to make a profit. Look at a private person example:
You make 60k, government steals 30% for "society". You now have 40k. Your cost of living is 35k, and you save 5k/mo. Seattle passes a new tax that will cost you 4k per year. What do you do? Do you charge your employer more for your labor, stop saving, or cut expenses? Anyone who has operated a small business understands this.
So because a person worked hard and risked a lot, the fruits of their labor are up for theft without moral consequences? That's logical. The $10M will not affect Bezos, it will affect (and be paid for) by the shoppers and the current and future employees of Amazon.
Capitalism has worked well in the US for many years... until FDR came about. Since, it hasn't existed. Funny how people say "Capitalism is not sustainable" while pointing at crony capitalism like it's like the same thing. Crony Capitalism, which has basically been the type of economy the US has had for about a century, is a completely different unsustainable beast from capitalism.
I just opened Edge for the 2nd time on my Windows 10 install... and none of those blocked use of them. They all recommended Chrome "a fast, secure browser" but none of them said "No entry!" to me.
Letting corporations rule isn't capitalism. A government breaking up Google isn't capitalism, either. When governments are involved, it's crony capitalism, when corporations rule it's corporatism. Capitalism is we the people having the power to stop corporations who become evil by starting our own competition and/or taking our business elsewhere.
Third parties are only not relevant because people won't vote for a 3rd party because a 3rd party won't win.. but to win, people need to vote 3rd party. Doesn't make a 3rd party relevant at all, just means you're playing into the us vs them 2 party system by continuing to vote in the 2 party system.
Options were more than Trump and Clinton no matter how much garbage the mainstream media portrays. The media showed signs of fear if the third parties this past year.
Except you're assuming that AT&T is arbitrarily discriminating rather than choosing to not invest in infrastructure where the risk of attempting to make their investment back is too great. The OP's analogy is no where even remotely similar... as you can drive your car anywhere. Using AT&T's internet connection from home requires their infrastructure to be in place... if the infrastructure is there (unlikely) and they're just choosing to sell it, that's a slightly different story. This story is about people complaining AT&T isn't willing to gamble millions on infrastructure it is unlikely to recoup its investments on.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not "too many streaming services", it's "too much fragmentation". Having more places to shop is always a good thing, having content creators say "we only sell here" is not. If the content you want to watch is not available where you watch, send a message to the content creator that they can go f*** themselves.
The PFD is not a Universal Basic Income... at all... not even remotely close.
Except, the Constitution doesn't permit the federal government making the rules to begin with, let alone the executive branch making what is effectively unilateral legislation. So, yes. Someone in the federal government followed the rules for the first time in decades.
How much you pay doesn't equal it's value. A seller could sell a 24 karat gold bar weighing 1 kg for $5, does that mean that the gold bar is valued at $5? No, its value is currently just over 38k USD.
Not accurate... the electoral college keeps all states relevant. If a candidate focuses their attention on LA, SF, Chicago, and NY they won't win an electoral vote election.... but a popular vote election is a completely different story. The Electoral College was designed to keep all states relevant.. and predates the concept of political parties. Electoral college doesn't keep the Republican and Democratic Parties relevant, the parties themselves manipulate law keeping any other voice out.
Not all voting machines do paper printing. Here's just one example: https://www.johnsoncitypress.c...
Not in my state they don't... you get one from the state at cost to the taxpayers upon registering to vote.. and you take it with you to the polls. Even when the talk includes the cost being paid for by the state, the average Democrat labels it as racist. You need ID to buy cars, cigarettes, alcohol, guns, etc. and it's not racist.. but it's racist to require one to vote?
I'm only happy that Trump won because it means Hillary didn't... but I'm equally unhappy with a Trump presidency. The two parties no longer represent the people of this countries or the values this nation was founded on... but fucking retards think there are only two candidates they can vote for... so they keep voting for the lesser evil hoping to break this cycle of shit.
No snow, it has been in the 70s to low 80s. And the cold isn't that bad.. especially just north of Mat-Su on the other side of the mountain range. It's a dry, windless cold... so it actually feels warmer.
Senate is part of Congress, not separate. Just like you can say the president or executive branch.
No, they shouldn't. It's not their responsibility. Target doesn't put me in contact with the maker of ZYX product. If it isn't a concern that they can address, they'll tell me to contact the manufacturer. If the person buying the product can't figure out who the maker is, then they shouldn't be buying it... it doesn't matter WHERE you are buying from... Ebay, Amazon, Walmart, Target... if you can't figure out who produced it, then don't buy it and keep looking. If you end up buying crap because you didn't look, then that is YOUR fault, not the marketplace's. The marketplace isn't responsible for you buying crap products, that was your choice from the very beginning. The only people pushing costs onto the court system is the customer in this case, Amazon's only obligation is to distribute recall notices, take back recalled items to return to the manufacturer, and take back defective merchandise sold by them to return back to the company, destroy or whatever else so long as it is within the return policy's time. Outside of that, it is not any marketplace's responsibility, whether it be Target or Amazon.
The customer messed up here, they bought a very cheap product and want someone else to pay because they didn't want to do the legwork necessary both before and after the purchase. It is up to the consumer to make good choices, not Amazon nor the Government's job to babysit you and make sure you make good choices and then foot the bill when you don't.
Standard of living is opinionated. A person who values freedom and being able to keep the fruit of their labor would say the standard of living pre-FDR is significantly better, while someone else who values government dependence and "free" shit could say standard of living post-FDR is better. But since I never discussed standard of living, and made a factual statement that we haven't had capitalism since FDR, and capitalism did do well pre-FDR is actually factual. Technology changes, compared to a majority of the world, our standard of living was much better. Just because technology kept changing after FDR doesn't invalidate the period before FDR.
Successful should be punished* dang autocorrect.. and 5k/mo should be 5k
So a person who is successful is published? Then why be successful knowing you'll be punished. Amazing logic there! Work hard so we can steal more from you! Very inline with the American dream /sarcasm
And companies exist to make a profit. It's needed for inventory building, expansion, employee hiring, R&D, rainy day funds, etc. You take away from that profit, what do they do? Companies exist to make a profit. Look at a private person example:
You make 60k, government steals 30% for "society". You now have 40k. Your cost of living is 35k, and you save 5k/mo. Seattle passes a new tax that will cost you 4k per year. What do you do? Do you charge your employer more for your labor, stop saving, or cut expenses? Anyone who has operated a small business understands this.
See "skid row". Seattle will have their own soon enough.
So because a person worked hard and risked a lot, the fruits of their labor are up for theft without moral consequences? That's logical. The $10M will not affect Bezos, it will affect (and be paid for) by the shoppers and the current and future employees of Amazon.
Capitalism has worked well in the US for many years ... until FDR came about. Since, it hasn't existed. Funny how people say "Capitalism is not sustainable" while pointing at crony capitalism like it's like the same thing. Crony Capitalism, which has basically been the type of economy the US has had for about a century, is a completely different unsustainable beast from capitalism.
No you don't. There is a skip button and it never pesters you again about it.
I just opened Edge for the 2nd time on my Windows 10 install... and none of those blocked use of them. They all recommended Chrome "a fast, secure browser" but none of them said "No entry!" to me.
Letting corporations rule isn't capitalism. A government breaking up Google isn't capitalism, either. When governments are involved, it's crony capitalism, when corporations rule it's corporatism. Capitalism is we the people having the power to stop corporations who become evil by starting our own competition and/or taking our business elsewhere.
Third parties are only not relevant because people won't vote for a 3rd party because a 3rd party won't win.. but to win, people need to vote 3rd party. Doesn't make a 3rd party relevant at all, just means you're playing into the us vs them 2 party system by continuing to vote in the 2 party system.
Options were more than Trump and Clinton no matter how much garbage the mainstream media portrays. The media showed signs of fear if the third parties this past year.
We're not a democracy.
Except you're assuming that AT&T is arbitrarily discriminating rather than choosing to not invest in infrastructure where the risk of attempting to make their investment back is too great. The OP's analogy is no where even remotely similar... as you can drive your car anywhere. Using AT&T's internet connection from home requires their infrastructure to be in place... if the infrastructure is there (unlikely) and they're just choosing to sell it, that's a slightly different story. This story is about people complaining AT&T isn't willing to gamble millions on infrastructure it is unlikely to recoup its investments on.
People can call it what they want, but that doesn't make it so. We're not a democracy, anyone who says we are doesn't understand basic government.