Very few people want a watch that is "Smart", just like very few people want "Smart" Refrigerators, "Smart" Thermostats, and just about everything else being pushed as IoT. Watches are probably the worst, because it has become a redundant piece of Jewelry when every single phone built today has a functional clock.
People don't want to waste time tracking their heartbeat online, or looking at their home thermostat at work. Your "Meh" expresses the opinion of all but 1 person I work with regularly when talking about "Smart" watches. That 1 guy used to have a FitBit and traded that in for the Apple watch. For working in high tech (security) you would think the number of people would be higher than about 1%, but it really isn't.
"Smart" watches are already a niche market. Not much for Swatch to pursue. Good name recognition is not enough to make a dent in a saturated market.
Discrimination needs to be proven, and there is absolutely no proof that discrimination against women occurs at all. Let alone proof that discrimination keeps women from choosing a different career path. There are failed allegations based on partial facts, all of which have been repeatedly _PROVEN_ to be false. Women make 70c on the dollar, women are not allowed to go to school, etc...
Before you start repeating other myths: Examples of professors (either gender) hitting on students does not prove discrimination, it proves that human nature exists. A professor wanting to have relations with a student is more likely to go out of their way to help them get educated, not suppress the education.
The only people repeating the lies about a magical patriarchy keeping women down are leftist/communist ideologues who refuse to address (or understand) anything honestly.
My kid had the Chicken Pox 3 times. The first was a mild case from the vaccine, which is pretty normal. The second was an outbreak in his school, (all mild cases) caused by a child who received the vaccine. Again, this is somewhat normal with the live vaccine. The third was a full blown case of chicken pox because apparently he was one of the unlucky few that the vaccine didn't actually work for.
Given your statement I would be able to sue the school, parents of the kid who's vaccine caused dozens to get chicken pox, and possibly the doctor or person responsible for the vaccine.
Creating a vacuum is not just an issue of pumping air. Perhaps your point was to emphasize your ignorance on the subject, because your comment about the system only being subject to 1 atmosphere of pressure was not enough...
Your first mistake is to conflate intimidation with speech. Your second is to have the false belief that speech on it's own causes harm. Your third, is to create a hypothetical based on your false belief, irrational conflation of two separate issues, and a delusion that people who say things you dislike should be silenced. You just struck out.
No, you can not back your assertion with any amount of reason and logic. I won't reply further because there is no need.
Position 1: People can not learn to defend their opinions and beliefs without hearing alternative opinions and beliefs. History and Education back my assertion.
Your answer: "nuh uh"
Position 2: It is impossible to accomplish partial censorship. History again backs my position, seeing what happens with censorship in virtually every communist nation, every despotic nation, every dictatorship, every monarchy, and every socialist nation who has tried. Not once has it been successful.
Your answer: "nuh uh"
Google, nor any other company needs to give "high rankings" to anyone (your words). That is an excuse for censorship, nothing more. You are an intellectual infant. I'm done reading your blithering idiocy.
Making up fabricated information is not compelling. Making yourself anonymous does not make you a different person, by your writing style and infantile points I can tell you are the same person.
You presented a hypothetical, but neglected to present your position on it, thus you didn't actually make much in the way of points, but presented a conjecture in a very shallow manner.
False. My response to my hypothetical was clear as day as the complete 2nd paragraph. "In other words, you are a delusional moron to believe that partial censorship has a different result as full censorship."
Can't think, can't read, can't present a valid argument against my own, and resort to a cowards position of hiding when challenged. Simply pathetic!
You completely avoided the issue and argument I presented. Instead of rambling talking points someone gave you, try addressing the actual points I made. Not incoherent bullshit and lies like your last statement, but actual points of debate.
Selective reading, I'm not impressed. Lets try a circular argument, go back and read that post again. If you still don't get it, pay very close attention to that last sentence.
Choices are based generally on two things.
1. Aptitude testing (if you suck at it you probably won't do it)
2. Personal Life Goals
There is no triple secret back room meetings with men claiming "We will help women into and through master level degrees in all areas except for STEM. If a women goes into STEM we won't pay the college bills and we won't hire them.
Belief in such is worthy of institutionalization for insanity.
So by your own logic, if all of the major book sellers in the US told us they were going to ban certain books you would be okay with that? Hell, you can still find them at other types of stores right?
In other words, you are a delusional moron to believe that partial censorship has a different result as full censorship.
Women are obtaining 61% of the Masters degrees in the US, the majority of which are NOT STEM RELATED! A PoliSci degree does no good for IT, let alone a specialty like IT Security. Can I take my 4 year Mathematics degree and instantly work in the Medical field? How about being a Sociologist? Journalist?
Once again we have pure propaganda creating a false narrative with a single fact where hundreds would need to be analyzed. Do sane people actually have to contemplate why many people call "Leftism" a mental disease?
While I fully agree with your perspective, there is no reason to censor speech. There is plenty of information out there to show that the Holocaust was real. We also have facts showing that Mao killed an estimated 80 million Chinese people, Stalin and Lenin killed more than 30 million Russian people. China hates these facts being in public and given the chance they certainly would censor information. Russia hates their history put on display, and just like China would censor if they could.
Hell, don't you think that the US is embarrassed about some if it's own history being put on display? Don't you think that certain people in Government would like you to never know about Operation Mockingbird/COINTELPRO? How about the wars with the American Indians? How about the Democratic Party pushing Jim Crow Laws? How about Iran/Contra? In other words, censorship would be an issue for much more than just Holocaust deniers and in the US it's not just a Republican/Democratic party who would want to take advantage of censorship.
Free speech is all about having the fake and stupid ideas on display, so that people can learn to defend themselves against fake and stupid ideas. You don't learn and grow by living in an echo chamber, you learn and grow by having your beliefs and opinions challenged.
Trusting some arbiter of "truth" to censor gives the censoring body the ability to censor not just fake and stupid ideas, but anything that they dislike. Wholly hell, look at the media in the US today to see what a mess they can make by manipulating information. People are lied to openly, and even worse through more nefarious means by omission which is hard to detect. Those people are the ones who would be censoring if we allowed it.
People like Dennis Prager, Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, who happen to be some top notch conservative thinkers are not invited to Facebook or Google for any input. Why? Because their input harms the beliefs of the people who want to censor. That is why we can't allow it and need to push back against it.
Mosquitoes and Mosquito larvae are critical food sources for numerous creatures. No mosquitoes == no larvae == starving little fish, starving bats, starving birds, starving spiders, etc.. etc.. etc...
Killing off mosquitoes is the worst possible option. Find vaccines and cures for the diseases/viruses/bacteria/etc.. mosquitoes carry, or find a way to simply kill those diseases/viruses/bacteria/etc.. in the mosquito.
Two forms of comedy which must be banned under "hate" speech because it is impossible to discern comedy from hate. That is exactly why comedians will no longer perform on College campuses in the US today, and most stopped a decade ago.
Why does every buffoon go to this argument? Because they can only repeat what they are told?
Shouting fire in a crowded theater is not illegal. A call to action which may cause severe harm "may" be illegal, if the call to action is based on fabricated information intended to be malicious. E.G. "There is a bomb on the subway!", when in fact there is no bomb and the intent was to disturb the public.
Going a bit further, there is a gross distinction between a person yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and having a different opinion on politics than you. The people wanting to shut down speech are not worried about the former because it's illegal already, they want the latter. Which is fine as long as you agree with their position, but the minute they change course or you diverge you are silenced.
I have dozens of relatives in Germany and guess what? They are all scared right now because of what is happening. I have an Aunt who recently passed away who was a child during WW II and told us how a majority of German citizens had no idea that Jews were being put to Genocide by the German Government. The US Soldiers marched German families through the concentration camps because Germans thought that the Allied Soldiers were lying. Their ignorance is a direct result of free speech dying and pure Government control of Newspapers, Radio, public speaking, and the education system.
That last part should bother the hell out of Germans who if they bothered to read a history book would find that the education system is one of the first places Hitler attacked with his ideology. He controlled all messages in education, just like you have today.
You took the wrong message, and shame on you for making such an asinine claim. Remember that the Jews were intolerant, the Pols were intolerant, the Hungarians were intolerant, the French were intolerant, the Russians were intolerant, the Brits were intolerant, the Schwarzs were intolerant, and I can repeat that for any group who spoke out against the State.
Everyone was was the enemy of the State. Just like today... You just refuse to admit as much
Slashdot Mirror
But people with enough money to sponsor him sure want you to hear him.
LUDICROUS SPEED!
Very few people want a watch that is "Smart", just like very few people want "Smart" Refrigerators, "Smart" Thermostats, and just about everything else being pushed as IoT. Watches are probably the worst, because it has become a redundant piece of Jewelry when every single phone built today has a functional clock.
People don't want to waste time tracking their heartbeat online, or looking at their home thermostat at work. Your "Meh" expresses the opinion of all but 1 person I work with regularly when talking about "Smart" watches. That 1 guy used to have a FitBit and traded that in for the Apple watch. For working in high tech (security) you would think the number of people would be higher than about 1%, but it really isn't.
"Smart" watches are already a niche market. Not much for Swatch to pursue. Good name recognition is not enough to make a dent in a saturated market.
Discrimination needs to be proven, and there is absolutely no proof that discrimination against women occurs at all. Let alone proof that discrimination keeps women from choosing a different career path. There are failed allegations based on partial facts, all of which have been repeatedly _PROVEN_ to be false. Women make 70c on the dollar, women are not allowed to go to school, etc...
Before you start repeating other myths: Examples of professors (either gender) hitting on students does not prove discrimination, it proves that human nature exists. A professor wanting to have relations with a student is more likely to go out of their way to help them get educated, not suppress the education.
The only people repeating the lies about a magical patriarchy keeping women down are leftist/communist ideologues who refuse to address (or understand) anything honestly.
My kid had the Chicken Pox 3 times. The first was a mild case from the vaccine, which is pretty normal. The second was an outbreak in his school, (all mild cases) caused by a child who received the vaccine. Again, this is somewhat normal with the live vaccine. The third was a full blown case of chicken pox because apparently he was one of the unlucky few that the vaccine didn't actually work for.
Given your statement I would be able to sue the school, parents of the kid who's vaccine caused dozens to get chicken pox, and possibly the doctor or person responsible for the vaccine.
Just remember, you reap what you sow.
Creating a vacuum is not just an issue of pumping air. Perhaps your point was to emphasize your ignorance on the subject, because your comment about the system only being subject to 1 atmosphere of pressure was not enough...
Your first mistake is to conflate intimidation with speech. Your second is to have the false belief that speech on it's own causes harm. Your third, is to create a hypothetical based on your false belief, irrational conflation of two separate issues, and a delusion that people who say things you dislike should be silenced. You just struck out.
No, you can not back your assertion with any amount of reason and logic. I won't reply further because there is no need.
How do you teach someone coding and concepts that take years to learn? Send them to school and wait a few years at least.
Seattle is the most educated city on the planet so of course we stand against vaccinations.
Ha ha, oh man. I needed a good laugh. You should really learn to use a search engine.
Position 1: People can not learn to defend their opinions and beliefs without hearing alternative opinions and beliefs. History and Education back my assertion.
Your answer: "nuh uh"
Position 2: It is impossible to accomplish partial censorship. History again backs my position, seeing what happens with censorship in virtually every communist nation, every despotic nation, every dictatorship, every monarchy, and every socialist nation who has tried. Not once has it been successful.
Your answer: "nuh uh"
Google, nor any other company needs to give "high rankings" to anyone (your words). That is an excuse for censorship, nothing more. You are an intellectual infant. I'm done reading your blithering idiocy.
Making up fabricated information is not compelling. Making yourself anonymous does not make you a different person, by your writing style and infantile points I can tell you are the same person.
You presented a hypothetical, but neglected to present your position on it, thus you didn't actually make much in the way of points, but presented a conjecture in a very shallow manner.
False. My response to my hypothetical was clear as day as the complete 2nd paragraph. "In other words, you are a delusional moron to believe that partial censorship has a different result as full censorship."
Can't think, can't read, can't present a valid argument against my own, and resort to a cowards position of hiding when challenged. Simply pathetic!
You completely avoided the issue and argument I presented. Instead of rambling talking points someone gave you, try addressing the actual points I made. Not incoherent bullshit and lies like your last statement, but actual points of debate.
Selective reading, I'm not impressed. Lets try a circular argument, go back and read that post again. If you still don't get it, pay very close attention to that last sentence.
Choice!
Choices are based generally on two things.
1. Aptitude testing (if you suck at it you probably won't do it)
2. Personal Life Goals
There is no triple secret back room meetings with men claiming "We will help women into and through master level degrees in all areas except for STEM. If a women goes into STEM we won't pay the college bills and we won't hire them.
Belief in such is worthy of institutionalization for insanity.
So by your own logic, if all of the major book sellers in the US told us they were going to ban certain books you would be okay with that? Hell, you can still find them at other types of stores right?
In other words, you are a delusional moron to believe that partial censorship has a different result as full censorship.
Women are obtaining 61% of the Masters degrees in the US, the majority of which are NOT STEM RELATED! A PoliSci degree does no good for IT, let alone a specialty like IT Security. Can I take my 4 year Mathematics degree and instantly work in the Medical field? How about being a Sociologist? Journalist?
Once again we have pure propaganda creating a false narrative with a single fact where hundreds would need to be analyzed. Do sane people actually have to contemplate why many people call "Leftism" a mental disease?
While I fully agree with your perspective, there is no reason to censor speech. There is plenty of information out there to show that the Holocaust was real. We also have facts showing that Mao killed an estimated 80 million Chinese people, Stalin and Lenin killed more than 30 million Russian people. China hates these facts being in public and given the chance they certainly would censor information. Russia hates their history put on display, and just like China would censor if they could.
Hell, don't you think that the US is embarrassed about some if it's own history being put on display? Don't you think that certain people in Government would like you to never know about Operation Mockingbird/COINTELPRO? How about the wars with the American Indians? How about the Democratic Party pushing Jim Crow Laws? How about Iran/Contra? In other words, censorship would be an issue for much more than just Holocaust deniers and in the US it's not just a Republican/Democratic party who would want to take advantage of censorship.
Free speech is all about having the fake and stupid ideas on display, so that people can learn to defend themselves against fake and stupid ideas. You don't learn and grow by living in an echo chamber, you learn and grow by having your beliefs and opinions challenged.
Trusting some arbiter of "truth" to censor gives the censoring body the ability to censor not just fake and stupid ideas, but anything that they dislike. Wholly hell, look at the media in the US today to see what a mess they can make by manipulating information. People are lied to openly, and even worse through more nefarious means by omission which is hard to detect. Those people are the ones who would be censoring if we allowed it.
People like Dennis Prager, Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, who happen to be some top notch conservative thinkers are not invited to Facebook or Google for any input. Why? Because their input harms the beliefs of the people who want to censor. That is why we can't allow it and need to push back against it.
Mosquitoes and Mosquito larvae are critical food sources for numerous creatures. No mosquitoes == no larvae == starving little fish, starving bats, starving birds, starving spiders, etc.. etc.. etc...
Killing off mosquitoes is the worst possible option. Find vaccines and cures for the diseases/viruses/bacteria/etc.. mosquitoes carry, or find a way to simply kill those diseases/viruses/bacteria/etc.. in the mosquito.
When caught being an idiot, act like a bigger idiot.
Two forms of comedy which must be banned under "hate" speech because it is impossible to discern comedy from hate. That is exactly why comedians will no longer perform on College campuses in the US today, and most stopped a decade ago.
Why does every buffoon go to this argument? Because they can only repeat what they are told?
Shouting fire in a crowded theater is not illegal. A call to action which may cause severe harm "may" be illegal, if the call to action is based on fabricated information intended to be malicious. E.G. "There is a bomb on the subway!", when in fact there is no bomb and the intent was to disturb the public.
Going a bit further, there is a gross distinction between a person yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and having a different opinion on politics than you. The people wanting to shut down speech are not worried about the former because it's illegal already, they want the latter. Which is fine as long as you agree with their position, but the minute they change course or you diverge you are silenced.
I have dozens of relatives in Germany and guess what? They are all scared right now because of what is happening. I have an Aunt who recently passed away who was a child during WW II and told us how a majority of German citizens had no idea that Jews were being put to Genocide by the German Government. The US Soldiers marched German families through the concentration camps because Germans thought that the Allied Soldiers were lying. Their ignorance is a direct result of free speech dying and pure Government control of Newspapers, Radio, public speaking, and the education system.
That last part should bother the hell out of Germans who if they bothered to read a history book would find that the education system is one of the first places Hitler attacked with his ideology. He controlled all messages in education, just like you have today.
You took the wrong message, and shame on you for making such an asinine claim. Remember that the Jews were intolerant, the Pols were intolerant, the Hungarians were intolerant, the French were intolerant, the Russians were intolerant, the Brits were intolerant, the Schwarzs were intolerant, and I can repeat that for any group who spoke out against the State.
Everyone was was the enemy of the State. Just like today... You just refuse to admit as much
Become a gynecologist. A family friend when I was a teen luckily saved me from long contemplation of that career.
IOT vibrators, what could go wrong?
A chipped blue tooth?
Oh yes it is, oh yes it, oh yes, ohhhhhhh