So being for gay rights and anti-creationism is right wing? What, seriously? I must have missed the memo.
Really dude, get out of that stupid left vs right world you live in. There is a lot more to the world than your one bit (literally) political viewpoint. I'm being very sincere here, it's a stupid paradigm that I would really like to see go away.
My issue with your Gmail example
See my other post as for why I chose the gmail issue and not any of the other ones (in a nutshell, because the article is about Google.)
Paying for extortion is unethical and illegal too. Laws punish both the extorter and who omits to denounce.
Tell that to labor unions who demand you pay dues to the union boss or else say goodbye to your job. Why? Because there's a fine line between what some consider extortion and some don't. You can also look at taxation as extortion. Again, depends who you ask.
Presumably she was afraid of the fact that the average Gmail user wouldn''t be aware that Google (and Google's unfaithful employees, and hackers, and the NSA,...) would be able to read his email, and continue to be able to do so for an unspecified amount of time after that mail was "deleted". Which is what actually happens today, but to a much wider extent, with people using the services of Google (Facebook, Bing,...) without being aware of the massive and uncontrollable espionage that supports them, because the terms of service are explained in EULAs which are effectively not understandable by those users. Banning Gmail would have been unuseful and unjust, I'd have regulated them to explain this policy to the users by using the same font size that they use when they advertise the size of the storage space they're offering, before the user signs the contract.
Screw that; in order to be fair that would amount to requiring every ad in the world be a full page ad. That's total bullshit. The terms and conditions are fully presented to you, it's up to you to choose not to read them.
In 2005 my ISP gave me 300 MB of storage which, in a time of 56K modem dialup connections, was plenty. The free offer from the same provider was 100MB, which is still ten times bigger than 10MB.
Uh...WHAT? 2005 was a full 7 years after I already had cable. My uncle who lives in a very VERY rural farm area also had DSL back in 2003. Where do you live, Afghanistan?
Did your webmail work like that? The one of my ISP looked like MS Outlook and wasn't bad. Why, AJAX was invented by Microsoft for that exact purpose.
Actually you're quite wrong there. The first public facing implementation of what is today called Ajax was Gmail. The Microsoft variant you refer to is missing the J portion, and used the much maligned ActiveX, and therefore was not Ajax by definition. Besides, when the term was coined, it was referenced specifically to techniques google used. Not only that, but gmail was an internal google service in 2001, and actually began development much earlier.
Oh and by the way, I picked that particular one for no reason other than TFA is about Google and only Google, and so I wanted to give an example of what Google has had to deal with. When you're a company as big as Google. spending money on lobbying is very much obligatory. If some smaller outfit did gmail, Liz Figueroa wouldn't have even noticed.
Comcast/Netflix has zero to do with Google. Net neutrality does, but it isn't even remotely specific to them. Gmail is.
It was almost entirely Democrats attacking that game, so is that also a right wing campaign to bring down Democrats? Or is it just a bunch of retarded politicians being...retarded? I mean you can see how stupid their reaction is to this game, so why are they reacting this strongly to it? It may or may not be about wanting their palms greased, but nevertheless money must be spent on lobbying efforts just to keep their game on store shelves (alternatively they may face e.g. bankruptcy, loss of jobs, etc.)
Though to be honest I think you're probably just an apologist for Democrats as if they can't do anything wrong.
So in that case I'll just calm your heart with the following words: Go Obama!
Basically you have to pay them money in order to be allowed to do things that are already ethical, perhaps even legal to do. If you already can do these things, then you often have to put up lobbying efforts to make sure that you can continue doing them.
For example, recall how after Google introduced gmail, California senator Liz Figueroa wanted to ban it. In that case, it took some heavy lobbying in order to keep gmail legal.
Personally, it would have pissed me off if they would have banned it; look at how gmail has revolutionized webmail. Before gmail they used to suck horribly, the good ones gave you a whopping 10MB of storage and each action you took required an entire page reload, making them slow as fuck. Yet gmail managed to be faster than native desktop clients in everything it did, including things that native clients were horridly slow at, such as searching.
But you know what? Often the US government (or even some state governments, like California) don't give a shit about whether or not anything is good and useful. The only thing they care about is how well their palms are greased.
That doesn't make any sense either, I've seen some events and charities that are meant to sponsor "women and minorities" only. This basically means anything except white males.
Honestly it doesn't bother me. Perhaps even a bit flattering; basically what they're saying is I'm the only one who has thick enough skin to not need any special considerations or handicaps.
Please tell me where in my posts I defend that we should go 100% organic.
I didn't say you did. Honestly dude you're reading way too far into my posts, just like you do with everybody else. First you attack me (accuse me of being a shill) and then you accuse me of saying things I didn't even say. I'm not bothering with the rest of your post, just go ahead and fuck yourself already.
And you're trying to bullshit me by saying I'm giving you a choice. I'm not giving you any choice, and I'm not denying you any choice either. What I'm saying is that we can't live on 100% organic. Analogies to harnessing zero point energy come to mind; it's just not going to happen. We also can't live on 0% GMO either; if we end that, then countries which have ended famine in recent decades will have to go back to famine. That is a fact.
We've already outgrown what the planet's resources are capable of giving us. That doesn't mean we have to shrink or even stop growing, it just means we have to adapt. GMO is part of that adaptation.
Looking at your post history, you're quite an asshole to everybody you talk to. There are many categories of assholes, and I can already tell that you're in the grade A category. You also seem to think that you have all of life's problems already sorted out, and that everybody simply needs to place their nose in your ass to reach paradise. I'm going to tell you right now though that you're quite wrong, and in fact people following you is a surefire way for their lives to become shitty.
You also seem to consider Europe to be "the rest of the world" and yet also somehow better than the rest of the world. Typical self centered asshole. Next time you start a world war I'll make sure the occupiers say hello.
High chance you're treating it the wrong way, either that or your expectations are wrong. If you're used to homeopathy, then your solution is always a straight-forward "like for like" but modern medicine doesn't work that way. For example, you aren't going to treat a viral cold with medicine designed to treat a bacterial cold, such as antibiotics. Even if you do use the correct medication, it isn't going to fix the problem over night either; it may even take days (often times the infection will be gone but the symptoms persist, which is mainly just a side effect of the way your immune system works, in which case you can use medication to merely treat the symptoms, because the underlying cause is already gone.)
A more accurate term would be "apologetic" rather than shill. No, I'm not being paid. It's hard to speak up for yourself when you are the one being attacked. Try being a white guy speaking against these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As bullshit as it is, you can't speak against it if you're white. Why? Well because you have a conflict of interest, therefore most people will automatically be less willing to believe you. Sometimes, for this reason some groups need an outside advocate. Monsanto has been demonized by the organic movement. Have they done some things wrong? Yeah. And so have we all. But this campaign against them is unjustified if not downright evil. In that case, here I am, an outside advocate who has no conflict of interest.
Also, your statement about food just being improperly distributed is only a result of the green revolution. Without it, and without GMO foods, there simply aren't enough resources available to feed the whole world on organic food. It's just not going to happen. You can thank companies like Monsanto for that one, but instead you want them burned at the stake for what you perceive as witchcraft.
I don't see why Monsanto is in this. GMO is a good thing; it currently plays a major role in the green revolution that is quite literally ending world hunger. There is no credible evidence of it being harmful. Monsanto isn't the only company behind it. The patent infringement lawsuit wasn't over what the majority seem to think it was over (the ONE farmer that was sued actually deliberately knew he was infringing, and they quite conclusively proved it; this wasn't a case of random cross-pollination.)
The biggest groups against Monsanto are mainly the organic farmers, and they actually have a set of much more nefarious motives:
- Organic farming makes much higher profit margins than GMO, so there IS money in it for them. Lots and lots of money. GMO is their biggest competitor, so it only makes sense for them to demonize it. Sadly, the hipsters have bought into it, and usually they are the least likely to buy into propaganda. - Reverting to Organic farming will destroy the green revolution, and countries like India will once again see famine if that came to pass. - Organic farming requires much more landmass than modern methods. If you're an environmentalist of any sort, you should very much be against organic farming as it necessitates e.g. deforestation. - There aren't enough natural resources in the world to sustain the current human population with organic farming (hence point number 2.)
Being anti-GMO is every bit as destructive, stupid, and naive as being anti-vaccination, and it's about time that people realize this.
Those Republicans with their hate need to just get the fuck out of this state.
Actually a lot of those who voted for prop 8 were Democrats. Remember this same state went for Obama during that same election, and prop 8 still won the majority vote.
Pretty much. I won't pretend to be an expert on particle physics, hence I just stated what I did, but I don't think that when anti-matter and regular matter come into contact they don't zap each other out of existence, rather they instead break down into the most elementary particles (releasing large quantities of energy in the process,) and then those will re-stabilize into whatever they can depending on the circumstances.
In certain circumstances, it stabilizes into anti-matter, like what is found in the Van Allen belts. In most circumstances, it stabilizes into regular matter. But, it won't stabilize into anti-matter in the presence of matter, nor vice-versa. Why? Because the original circumstances that caused it to destabilize are presented again if that happens.
It's possible that just out of blind chance (say, exact 50-50 odds of it going either way) what we call regular matter just happened to win. But again, I'm not a theoretical physicist nor anything close to it, so I base this on absolutely nothing.
I was just about to respond to that myself, though differently.
I believe in being empathetic, but I don't believe anybody has any kind of duty or moral obligation to be.
I think the worst form of greed is expecting somebody else to be more generous than you yourself are willing or able to be. Asking is one thing, but expecting or demanding is another.
From what I heard, Netflix didn't want to support it (or just hasn't had the time to implement it yet, that hasn't been clarified.)
I'm thinking about getting one because I don't like having a PC plugged into a TV (PCs really are a pain in the ass to get working properly with a remote, not to mention being able to switch between applications with one as well.) I have a Roku 3, but the UI for Plex on it is just awful, and apparently Plex has no say in the matter (Roku gives developers a limited set of UI templates to choose from.)
That said, it would be nice if this feature worked for Plex.
Plus I've been gathering a crapload (perhaps 700 or so) of the "free app of the day"s from Amazon, in addition to a few free "non-free" apps via their occasional coin and credit giveaways, and I'm thinking at least some of them will be useful on this.
Such as? Pretty much the only case I can think of on that would be the Dixie Chicks. That wasn't really a boycott though, rather their fanbase just didn't care to listen to them anymore. Most of the right were never really into their music to begin with, but the few that were probably just couldn't stand listening to some people singing after they heard them speaking out as whiny activists.
There's also the incident where carbonite saw dramatically reduced subscriber numbers after they yanked their Limbaugh sponsorship, but again not a boycott, rather that was more a result of them deciding to snub what was perhaps their biggest source of customers.
Tesla is hardly a rich man's car. Maybe the original Roadster was, but the newer models are priced lower than typical luxury cars from other manufacturers. In fact, it runs about 10 grand cheaper than the Lexus LX, which is sort of the generic of luxury cars (not that it isn't a good car mind you.)
Also, I'm pretty sure that the stated purpose of the carpool lane is to reduce emissions. This is why most states, for example, allow motorcycles in it, because they're quite a bit more efficient in that regard. Seeing as an electric car has zero emissions, it kind of makes sense (I don't know about California, but the Phoenix area is powered entirely by nuclear and hydro, so its "fuel" is near zero emissions.)
As long as "Freedom" is the US defined version, right?
Actually no. Services like twitter are freely available in places around the world who have all kinds of varying opinions on what "free" is; at least, varying from the US version anyways. Some of these countries, particularly in Europe, set some pretty hefty restrictions on free speech even, such as labeling it hate speech if they don't like it. And really, that is acceptable so long as that is what the people of that country want.
What ultimately matters is that the government doesn't hold an ironclad control over speech that is so strong that the people aren't allowed to decide for themselves what they want to be right and wrong. All the US is doing here is enabling Cubans to have that power.
Cubans can't possibly make their own decisions, right? US has to tell them what is right. Control is the agenda of mankind. You will never be free until you understand that.
On the contrary, this is far from that. The Cuban government currently says that Cubans can't possibly make their own decisions (if they can, then they're breaking the law.) What we're doing is giving them the power to make their own decisions.
What? That doesn't sound right at all. The H1-Bs are the skilled ones. I don't get why so many out there are opposed to H1-B but they think we need to blindly grant citizenship to the illegals who hop across the border. FWIW I support H1-B but am very much opposed to anchors that drop from the womb.
In a forecast, I'm thinking Firefox will probably become more popular as a result of this. Why? Because most people don't react well to negative activism; negative activism tends to rally the supporters. Look at chic-fil-a, they had record sales after the EXACT same thing happened to them, and in fact they are now more profitable than ever.
That, and activists tend to be snobish assholes that people end up hating more than what the activists are trying to get everybody else to hate. Just ask this guy:
Nice guy my ass. I guarantee you that he's a total prick to everybody he's around because he berates them for everything he doesn't like about them, but he still thinks he's a nice guy anyways and that it's ok to berate people for things you perceive as bad. It's not, in fact it makes you a douchebag.
The hypocrisy is loud on this one. I don't know about Jobs, but Ballmer and Cook would certainly be on your side on this issue, yet this guy is obviously the guilty one in the court of public opinion. Also keep in mind a big majority of California voted for prop 8, and indeed prop 8 became law. It was only removed after a rather non-democratic (read: republican, and note that these words have nothing to do with the respective political parties) process removed it.
At some point you have to ask the question: Is everybody else the asshole, or is it just you?
I wouldn't say that. My mom is currently struggling with Obamacare right now because, (and this might sound familiar) you can't actually find out which of your doctors are covered (in network) until you actually pay for the plan first. This sucks for her because she already has a few pain specialists she's already been seeing and neither them, nor the insurance company, nor the healthcare.gov website can tell her if that plan will pay for her to visit them. She has to be issued a card for the plan first and THEN take that plan to the doctor before they can say whether or not they'll take it. I guess some aspect of the law (it is 10,000 fucking pages long) requires they actually see the card; simply giving them the information about the plan via another means doesn't work for whatever reason.
The result? After the first and second plans didn't cover them, she just opted to get a refund, eat the obamacare fine, and pay for the visits out of pocket. Now she pays more.
Slashdot Mirror
What, seriously?
So being for gay rights and anti-creationism is right wing? What, seriously? I must have missed the memo.
Really dude, get out of that stupid left vs right world you live in. There is a lot more to the world than your one bit (literally) political viewpoint. I'm being very sincere here, it's a stupid paradigm that I would really like to see go away.
My issue with your Gmail example
See my other post as for why I chose the gmail issue and not any of the other ones (in a nutshell, because the article is about Google.)
Paying for extortion is unethical and illegal too. Laws punish both the extorter and who omits to denounce.
Tell that to labor unions who demand you pay dues to the union boss or else say goodbye to your job. Why? Because there's a fine line between what some consider extortion and some don't. You can also look at taxation as extortion. Again, depends who you ask.
Presumably she was afraid of the fact that the average Gmail user wouldn''t be aware that Google (and Google's unfaithful employees, and hackers, and the NSA, ...) would be able to read his email, and continue to be able to do so for an unspecified amount of time after that mail was "deleted". Which is what actually happens today, but to a much wider extent, with people using the services of Google (Facebook, Bing, ...) without being aware of the massive and uncontrollable espionage that supports them, because the terms of service are explained in EULAs which are effectively not understandable by those users. Banning Gmail would have been unuseful and unjust, I'd have regulated them to explain this policy to the users by using the same font size that they use when they advertise the size of the storage space they're offering, before the user signs the contract.
Screw that; in order to be fair that would amount to requiring every ad in the world be a full page ad. That's total bullshit. The terms and conditions are fully presented to you, it's up to you to choose not to read them.
In 2005 my ISP gave me 300 MB of storage which, in a time of 56K modem dialup connections, was plenty. The free offer from the same provider was 100MB, which is still ten times bigger than 10MB.
Uh...WHAT? 2005 was a full 7 years after I already had cable. My uncle who lives in a very VERY rural farm area also had DSL back in 2003. Where do you live, Afghanistan?
Did your webmail work like that? The one of my ISP looked like MS Outlook and wasn't bad. Why, AJAX was invented by Microsoft for that exact purpose.
Actually you're quite wrong there. The first public facing implementation of what is today called Ajax was Gmail. The Microsoft variant you refer to is missing the J portion, and used the much maligned ActiveX, and therefore was not Ajax by definition. Besides, when the term was coined, it was referenced specifically to techniques google used. Not only that, but gmail was an internal google service in 2001, and actually began development much earlier.
Oh and by the way, I picked that particular one for no reason other than TFA is about Google and only Google, and so I wanted to give an example of what Google has had to deal with. When you're a company as big as Google. spending money on lobbying is very much obligatory. If some smaller outfit did gmail, Liz Figueroa wouldn't have even noticed.
Comcast/Netflix has zero to do with Google. Net neutrality does, but it isn't even remotely specific to them. Gmail is.
I don't really think her being a Democrat had anything to do with it, nor is Cato right wing.
I'd also cite this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It was almost entirely Democrats attacking that game, so is that also a right wing campaign to bring down Democrats? Or is it just a bunch of retarded politicians being...retarded? I mean you can see how stupid their reaction is to this game, so why are they reacting this strongly to it? It may or may not be about wanting their palms greased, but nevertheless money must be spent on lobbying efforts just to keep their game on store shelves (alternatively they may face e.g. bankruptcy, loss of jobs, etc.)
Though to be honest I think you're probably just an apologist for Democrats as if they can't do anything wrong.
So in that case I'll just calm your heart with the following words: Go Obama!
No it's not that. The best thing I can see to compare it to is 2:30 into this video: (watch til at least 4:00)
http://www.vice.com/the-vice-g...
Basically you have to pay them money in order to be allowed to do things that are already ethical, perhaps even legal to do. If you already can do these things, then you often have to put up lobbying efforts to make sure that you can continue doing them.
For example, recall how after Google introduced gmail, California senator Liz Figueroa wanted to ban it. In that case, it took some heavy lobbying in order to keep gmail legal.
Personally, it would have pissed me off if they would have banned it; look at how gmail has revolutionized webmail. Before gmail they used to suck horribly, the good ones gave you a whopping 10MB of storage and each action you took required an entire page reload, making them slow as fuck. Yet gmail managed to be faster than native desktop clients in everything it did, including things that native clients were horridly slow at, such as searching.
But you know what? Often the US government (or even some state governments, like California) don't give a shit about whether or not anything is good and useful. The only thing they care about is how well their palms are greased.
I cut my own hair with a shaver I spent $20 on 5 years ago.
That doesn't make any sense either, I've seen some events and charities that are meant to sponsor "women and minorities" only. This basically means anything except white males.
Honestly it doesn't bother me. Perhaps even a bit flattering; basically what they're saying is I'm the only one who has thick enough skin to not need any special considerations or handicaps.
Please tell me where in my posts I defend that we should go 100% organic.
I didn't say you did. Honestly dude you're reading way too far into my posts, just like you do with everybody else. First you attack me (accuse me of being a shill) and then you accuse me of saying things I didn't even say. I'm not bothering with the rest of your post, just go ahead and fuck yourself already.
And you're trying to bullshit me by saying I'm giving you a choice. I'm not giving you any choice, and I'm not denying you any choice either. What I'm saying is that we can't live on 100% organic. Analogies to harnessing zero point energy come to mind; it's just not going to happen. We also can't live on 0% GMO either; if we end that, then countries which have ended famine in recent decades will have to go back to famine. That is a fact.
We've already outgrown what the planet's resources are capable of giving us. That doesn't mean we have to shrink or even stop growing, it just means we have to adapt. GMO is part of that adaptation.
Looking at your post history, you're quite an asshole to everybody you talk to. There are many categories of assholes, and I can already tell that you're in the grade A category. You also seem to think that you have all of life's problems already sorted out, and that everybody simply needs to place their nose in your ass to reach paradise. I'm going to tell you right now though that you're quite wrong, and in fact people following you is a surefire way for their lives to become shitty.
You also seem to consider Europe to be "the rest of the world" and yet also somehow better than the rest of the world. Typical self centered asshole. Next time you start a world war I'll make sure the occupiers say hello.
High chance you're treating it the wrong way, either that or your expectations are wrong. If you're used to homeopathy, then your solution is always a straight-forward "like for like" but modern medicine doesn't work that way. For example, you aren't going to treat a viral cold with medicine designed to treat a bacterial cold, such as antibiotics. Even if you do use the correct medication, it isn't going to fix the problem over night either; it may even take days (often times the infection will be gone but the symptoms persist, which is mainly just a side effect of the way your immune system works, in which case you can use medication to merely treat the symptoms, because the underlying cause is already gone.)
A more accurate term would be "apologetic" rather than shill. No, I'm not being paid. It's hard to speak up for yourself when you are the one being attacked. Try being a white guy speaking against these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As bullshit as it is, you can't speak against it if you're white. Why? Well because you have a conflict of interest, therefore most people will automatically be less willing to believe you. Sometimes, for this reason some groups need an outside advocate. Monsanto has been demonized by the organic movement. Have they done some things wrong? Yeah. And so have we all. But this campaign against them is unjustified if not downright evil. In that case, here I am, an outside advocate who has no conflict of interest.
Also, your statement about food just being improperly distributed is only a result of the green revolution. Without it, and without GMO foods, there simply aren't enough resources available to feed the whole world on organic food. It's just not going to happen. You can thank companies like Monsanto for that one, but instead you want them burned at the stake for what you perceive as witchcraft.
I don't see why Monsanto is in this. GMO is a good thing; it currently plays a major role in the green revolution that is quite literally ending world hunger. There is no credible evidence of it being harmful. Monsanto isn't the only company behind it. The patent infringement lawsuit wasn't over what the majority seem to think it was over (the ONE farmer that was sued actually deliberately knew he was infringing, and they quite conclusively proved it; this wasn't a case of random cross-pollination.)
The biggest groups against Monsanto are mainly the organic farmers, and they actually have a set of much more nefarious motives:
- Organic farming makes much higher profit margins than GMO, so there IS money in it for them. Lots and lots of money. GMO is their biggest competitor, so it only makes sense for them to demonize it. Sadly, the hipsters have bought into it, and usually they are the least likely to buy into propaganda.
- Reverting to Organic farming will destroy the green revolution, and countries like India will once again see famine if that came to pass.
- Organic farming requires much more landmass than modern methods. If you're an environmentalist of any sort, you should very much be against organic farming as it necessitates e.g. deforestation.
- There aren't enough natural resources in the world to sustain the current human population with organic farming (hence point number 2.)
Being anti-GMO is every bit as destructive, stupid, and naive as being anti-vaccination, and it's about time that people realize this.
Those Republicans with their hate need to just get the fuck out of this state.
Actually a lot of those who voted for prop 8 were Democrats. Remember this same state went for Obama during that same election, and prop 8 still won the majority vote.
Pretty much. I won't pretend to be an expert on particle physics, hence I just stated what I did, but I don't think that when anti-matter and regular matter come into contact they don't zap each other out of existence, rather they instead break down into the most elementary particles (releasing large quantities of energy in the process,) and then those will re-stabilize into whatever they can depending on the circumstances.
In certain circumstances, it stabilizes into anti-matter, like what is found in the Van Allen belts. In most circumstances, it stabilizes into regular matter. But, it won't stabilize into anti-matter in the presence of matter, nor vice-versa. Why? Because the original circumstances that caused it to destabilize are presented again if that happens.
It's possible that just out of blind chance (say, exact 50-50 odds of it going either way) what we call regular matter just happened to win. But again, I'm not a theoretical physicist nor anything close to it, so I base this on absolutely nothing.
I think what's really going on is we actually are anti-matter, and what WE see as anti-matter is the real matter.
I base this, of course, on absolutely nothing.
Is there room for this behavior in a world where saying the "N" word, calling gay people words beginning with "F", etc. isn't socially acceptable?
You don't become a criminal for doing that.
I was just about to respond to that myself, though differently.
I believe in being empathetic, but I don't believe anybody has any kind of duty or moral obligation to be.
I think the worst form of greed is expecting somebody else to be more generous than you yourself are willing or able to be. Asking is one thing, but expecting or demanding is another.
From what I heard, Netflix didn't want to support it (or just hasn't had the time to implement it yet, that hasn't been clarified.)
I'm thinking about getting one because I don't like having a PC plugged into a TV (PCs really are a pain in the ass to get working properly with a remote, not to mention being able to switch between applications with one as well.) I have a Roku 3, but the UI for Plex on it is just awful, and apparently Plex has no say in the matter (Roku gives developers a limited set of UI templates to choose from.)
That said, it would be nice if this feature worked for Plex.
Plus I've been gathering a crapload (perhaps 700 or so) of the "free app of the day"s from Amazon, in addition to a few free "non-free" apps via their occasional coin and credit giveaways, and I'm thinking at least some of them will be useful on this.
Such as? Pretty much the only case I can think of on that would be the Dixie Chicks. That wasn't really a boycott though, rather their fanbase just didn't care to listen to them anymore. Most of the right were never really into their music to begin with, but the few that were probably just couldn't stand listening to some people singing after they heard them speaking out as whiny activists.
There's also the incident where carbonite saw dramatically reduced subscriber numbers after they yanked their Limbaugh sponsorship, but again not a boycott, rather that was more a result of them deciding to snub what was perhaps their biggest source of customers.
Tesla is hardly a rich man's car. Maybe the original Roadster was, but the newer models are priced lower than typical luxury cars from other manufacturers. In fact, it runs about 10 grand cheaper than the Lexus LX, which is sort of the generic of luxury cars (not that it isn't a good car mind you.)
Also, I'm pretty sure that the stated purpose of the carpool lane is to reduce emissions. This is why most states, for example, allow motorcycles in it, because they're quite a bit more efficient in that regard. Seeing as an electric car has zero emissions, it kind of makes sense (I don't know about California, but the Phoenix area is powered entirely by nuclear and hydro, so its "fuel" is near zero emissions.)
As long as "Freedom" is the US defined version, right?
Actually no. Services like twitter are freely available in places around the world who have all kinds of varying opinions on what "free" is; at least, varying from the US version anyways. Some of these countries, particularly in Europe, set some pretty hefty restrictions on free speech even, such as labeling it hate speech if they don't like it. And really, that is acceptable so long as that is what the people of that country want.
What ultimately matters is that the government doesn't hold an ironclad control over speech that is so strong that the people aren't allowed to decide for themselves what they want to be right and wrong. All the US is doing here is enabling Cubans to have that power.
Cubans can't possibly make their own decisions, right? US has to tell them what is right. Control is the agenda of mankind. You will never be free until you understand that.
On the contrary, this is far from that. The Cuban government currently says that Cubans can't possibly make their own decisions (if they can, then they're breaking the law.) What we're doing is giving them the power to make their own decisions.
What? That doesn't sound right at all. The H1-Bs are the skilled ones. I don't get why so many out there are opposed to H1-B but they think we need to blindly grant citizenship to the illegals who hop across the border. FWIW I support H1-B but am very much opposed to anchors that drop from the womb.
In a forecast, I'm thinking Firefox will probably become more popular as a result of this. Why? Because most people don't react well to negative activism; negative activism tends to rally the supporters. Look at chic-fil-a, they had record sales after the EXACT same thing happened to them, and in fact they are now more profitable than ever.
That, and activists tend to be snobish assholes that people end up hating more than what the activists are trying to get everybody else to hate. Just ask this guy:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
Nice guy my ass. I guarantee you that he's a total prick to everybody he's around because he berates them for everything he doesn't like about them, but he still thinks he's a nice guy anyways and that it's ok to berate people for things you perceive as bad. It's not, in fact it makes you a douchebag.
The hypocrisy is loud on this one. I don't know about Jobs, but Ballmer and Cook would certainly be on your side on this issue, yet this guy is obviously the guilty one in the court of public opinion. Also keep in mind a big majority of California voted for prop 8, and indeed prop 8 became law. It was only removed after a rather non-democratic (read: republican, and note that these words have nothing to do with the respective political parties) process removed it.
At some point you have to ask the question: Is everybody else the asshole, or is it just you?
I wouldn't say that. My mom is currently struggling with Obamacare right now because, (and this might sound familiar) you can't actually find out which of your doctors are covered (in network) until you actually pay for the plan first. This sucks for her because she already has a few pain specialists she's already been seeing and neither them, nor the insurance company, nor the healthcare.gov website can tell her if that plan will pay for her to visit them. She has to be issued a card for the plan first and THEN take that plan to the doctor before they can say whether or not they'll take it. I guess some aspect of the law (it is 10,000 fucking pages long) requires they actually see the card; simply giving them the information about the plan via another means doesn't work for whatever reason.
The result? After the first and second plans didn't cover them, she just opted to get a refund, eat the obamacare fine, and pay for the visits out of pocket. Now she pays more.