Ultimately this is why young people will avoid Facebook if they are not doing it already. It will become an echo chamber for the old.
This is already happening. Facebook is what mom and dad or grandma and grandpa use to share recipes and pictures of their dog. My daughter deleted her account after the election because of all the post election bickering. My younger kids have mostly abandoned theirs. Most of the still-in-school crowd has moved on to Instagram and Snapchat.
I am torn over this issue. As a conservative, I do think the prevalence of pornography and the accessibility of these images is harmful to society on the whole.
As a conservative myself, I yearn for the good-old-days back in the seventies when you could buy Playboy at the magazine rack of your local supermarket, streakers would crash sporting events, and you didn't get put on sexual predator registries for life and banned from ever living near schools or parks just for taking a piss in public.
Generations will look back at our folly and judge us like we judge the witch hunters of the seventeenth century.
The question is whether passenger's "rights" to use their phone are more important than the safety of other drivers on the road. I would argue that safety is paramount in that context if we can actually prevent distracted driving. Until we can come up with a more fine grained solution, disable them all if that is the only safe option. Nobody's civil rights are being violated here and we've proven VERY clearly that we as a group cannot be trusted to leave the phone alone while driving.
That's your bar? You right to "feel" safe is priority over others rights as long as it doesn't violate their Civil Rights? Distracted driving isn't going to disappear just because people wouldn't be able to use mobile devices.
I don't see any credible argument that your right to use your phone should supersede my right to use a motorway in reasonable safety. As the saying goes, your right to swing your arm ends at my nose.
You don't want to restrict the rights of the person swinging their arm. You want to restrict everyone's rights. You're telling my kids that they can't play their games or text their friends during our 90 minute drive to grandma's house. Your safety is unaffected by them. What you want to call "reasonable safety" I would argue is quite unreasonable.
Maybe we should disable all calls and texts to/from a phone which is determined to be within a moving vehicle. (yes even the passengers - suck it up, You and your passengers can wait a few minutes for their call.) If it's important to speak to someone, pull off to the side of the road and put the car in park.
I hear a few (usually vocal) people advocate disabling cell phones within moving vehicles. Unfortunately for their particular solution, it appears from that the overwhelming majority of people seem to want to use their mobile devices in their cars. My afternoon commute is always occupied with mobile users - drivers and passengers - calling, texting, surfing, or emailing. If I had a very long passenger commute, rode a bus, car pooled, or took a train, (none of those apply to me) I would be first in line to tell them to shove it up their sanctimonious asses.
Don't like that solution? Fine, come up with a better one. I'm all ears, believe me. But the status quo isn't acceptable.
Obviously, there is no clear, workable and fair solution at present but the fact that the status quo "isn't acceptable" is not a reason to just DO SOMETHING. That's how we get things like the PATRIOT Act.
Well, if you were in WIN10 you'd already be home! Or, just wait for Linux to patch his fuckup, that somehow is your fault!
I am using WIN10. I'm still waiting for the patch to fix my DHCP that the last patch broke. It's too bad that I have no networking now so my wait for that patch might be a long one.
You still haven't said why divorce is bad. You've said why abandoning children is bad, and you have implicitly equated divorce with abandoning children but that's a false equivalence.
That is only one aspect. Yes. Abandoning children is bad. The woman I am dating has a working relationship with her ex and a 50/50 split on child rearing. I have seen the changes in her girls over time. There is no doubt that the divorce has affected them negatively. One of her girls has had very negative changes.
My son's best friend has a broken family. The mother has custody with the dad having visitation. Dad seems to be a great parent and never misses a visitation. I've seen him with his kids all over town taking them to events but I have seen the negative changes in this kid as a result of the divorce as well.
Sounds to me as if divorce has had little to do with it. The bipolar disorder sounds like the big factor. If anything divorce helped. If you were all forced together as a family, not only would they have a mother with severe mental problems but they'd also have a dad who was in no great place either.
Bipolar has very little to do with separation anxiety. The kids had abandonment issues. My middle son had attachment issues with women. That's the result of a broken marriage, not living with a mom with mental health issues.
But if you didn't get divorced, you'd not have to pay daycare because you'd be happy leaving your kids to be looked after by someone with severe bipolar disorder and off her meds? I don't get it. Surely that wasn't an option either so again divorce had little to do with it.
Bipolar != Schizephrenia. Bipolar people are functional. During a high, they go without sleep, have unrealistic delusions of ability and make poor judgment decisions especially with money and work. During a low, they mope around and sleep a lot. My ex is not Shelley Duvall crazy. She does do some real stupid shit when she is manic though.
I will say that my oldest expressed a relief that her mother was finally out of the house. Sure it was harder on all of us for many reasons, but the tension and arguments were finally gone.
Seriously though your objections are basically along the lines of "sometimes people are crap". I agree with that. Divorce is not bad because people are crap: people are going to be crap either way. Divorce is simply the escape hatch. The alternative is being stuck.
Divorce is arguably bad. However, sometimes the alternatives are worse. I've seen divorces where one spouse does everything they can to hurt the person they vowed to stay committed to for the rest of their life. I've seen divorces where one spouse puts the other into the poor house over their anger. I've seen parents try to hurt their ex through their kids. Yes. People suck.
Think of it this way. On the most basic level, divorce is bad because a marriage and family are now broken. That in itself is sad. The relative ease of divorce reduces the amount of commitment that a person needs to keep things together and to make things work. It's easy to just give up. Nobody wants to try. Yes, sometimes there is no way to make things work. Sometimes divorce is necessary but make no mistake, the result is not a total positive.
No problem. We'll just ban divorce, and you'll be forced to live with your bipolar nut-case ex-wife until you die (probably by suicide). How does that sound?
I'm not the suicidal type. During the worst parts of our marriage, it never once entered my mind. Then again, I'm not bipolar or depressive. Just FYI, I did not want the marriage to end at the time and I did whatever I could to save it, but as I stated before, it was the best thing that could have happened to me. As for the kids, the jury is still out on that.
There is an old adage that says "Men marry women believing that they will never change. Women marry men believing they can make them change. They are both wrong." The woman I divorced bore very little resemblance to the one I married.
Again, would you prefer having your bipolar nut-case wife back?
Please re-read my original post. I believe I was clear on the point.
Divorce is a good thing: it keeps unfortunate men like your ex's new ex from becoming completely homeless, and letting them break free of a toxic relationship.
He did become homeless. Or rather, had to go live with his elderly father. She went through his finances and walked out on him just like she did me. She left him with nothing but debt. Shortly after that, she tried to convince me to take her in when her finances went to shit. I declined. My youngest would have been devastated when she left again even if it was only "a few weeks for getting on her feet." I had pity for her, but not enough to damage my kids any more.
I think my original post may have been confusing. Unquestionably, divorce is bad. With children, it is doubly bad. That does not preclude it from being necessary. Sometimes the alternatives are worse.
That doesn't explain why you think divorce is bad.
I guess you have never had to hold a crying five-year-old who misses his mommy who left her family.
Mind you. I'm not complaining. Looking in the rear view mirror, divorce was the absolute best thing that could have happened to me. I am way happier being rid of a woman who devolved over the years into a bipolar nut case who refused to stay on her meds. However, the kids all did suffer in many ways being without their mother including suffering from various levels of separation anxiety for years.
If you want objective cases why divorce is bad, divorce results in dividing a home into two homes. It is considerably more expensive to operate two households than a single one. Therefore, all parties suffer financially when resources are spread thinner. Many cases of divorce result in bankruptcy of one or both parties. The result is a drain on society. Too many single parent homes are living below the poverty level. In my particular case, I received very minimal child support ($200 for four kids) and I suddenly had to find daycare and swallow all the associated expenses. We, as a family, had to accept a lower standard of living during those years.
Divorce is not a simple boyfriend/girlfriend break up where everyone walks on their merry way, free and clear, when kids are involved; it gets way messier. Should someone stay in an abusive relationship? No, but don't delude yourself that divorce is a quick simple remedy to relationship problems. My ex has already married and divorced again since we split and her husband ended up in bankruptcy court for his trouble too.
My 2008 Prius has a way to update the maps -- A DVD from Toyota containing one (1) map update, which costs more than two (2) brand-new Garmin GPS systems with included lifetime map update.
Exactly. Her Camry is a 2005 and the dealer has to upgrade the maps (or so they said). The cost was outrageous. Doesn't matter, the interface is awful anyway. We use Waze in her car. Waaaaay better.
... never buying a built-in navigation system ever again. Fool me twice, shame on me... Google Maps lets me download maps for an area I'm going to that might not have service, so I'll just use my phone from now on.
I am in the market for new car right now. No satnav is on my must-have list.
I'm just guessing.... that maaaaybe these legislators don't ride the bus often?
Not legislators, bureaucrats (NHTSA). That is the problem. These "regulators" are always looking for new ways to justify their jobs. If they don't come out with new and improved ideas for us little people regardless of the practicality, usefulness, or hardship on those little people, Congress may not think they need as big a budget next year. It's a good thing they always know what's best for us. Mommy can't be around forever, you know.
My girlfriend has a Camry with a fancy Navigation System. It's useless. The passenger cannot change anything as long as the car is in gear. We end up using our phones when going anywhere in her car. It's a $1,000 white elephant. It also sucks for trying to find a destination anyway.
That the voters nominated the two worst options is only a reflection on them. It's been all downhill since Kennedy died. Who ever thought than anybody could make Bush look like a picture of grace and decorum?
You hit the nail on the head. During the primaries, only Chris Christie and Bernie Sanders ever bothered to answer the questions that were asked. Every other candidate would ramble off on some subject that only indirectly had anything to do with the issue at hand. Whether you like them or not, at least you knew where they stood. Yet Republicans chose a clown with absolutely no filter between his brain and his mouth and Democrats chose a career liar that thinks laws apply only to the little people and would push her own daughter in front of a bus to get elected. It's utterly disgusting.
I get that from both sides. If you're against one you're for the other. Good old tribalism at work there. All rationality is pushed aside, something that you're bumping up against with the other guy there.
Bulls-eye again. No matter what transgression you point out, partisans on sides point across the table and scream, "But they did that!" No matter who we get, you can expect more of whatever they did in the past. If/when HRC wins, her apologists will justify it again. "I know it looks bad, but it wasn't actually criminal." Or if/when Trump shoots off his mouth on day one, you can expect more: "But that's not what he meant..."
Your console TV have the record player too? I thought they were all in color by '68.
We finally got a color TV in spring of 1975 and it could tune UHF (woo hoo). Color certainly wasn't universal by 1968. There were lots of riff raff living with black and white in the early seventies. A color TV set in 1975 was hundreds of dollars, and my dad bought a brand new car (Datsun) for less that $3,000 in 1976. Our old set was a nice piece of real wood furniture, but it did not have a record player in it. One of my uncles did have one. It had a nice walnut panel on the top that slid to the side to reveal the turntable. It was pretty cool!
If you're my age, you might start with Iran Contra, but that's a while back. Hard to believe you could be too young to remember Dubya and Cheney.
Dude, you're way off. I remember Nixon and the endless televised hearings over ALL THREE channels on our black and white console TV. He engendered the type of universal dislike from both sides of the aisle that a President Trump will have. Trump wouldn't be able to fart without a Congressional investigation. Hillary may be the same though. I expect the animosity for her may cause four years of investigation in he House assuming they don't try to impeach right away. Whatever the case, I certainly hope our choices are better in four years. It's gonna be a rough ride whatever happens. FWIW, I know there are a lot of HRC apologists here that think I'm a Trump supporter, but I supported Bernie. I won't vote for Turd Sandwich or Giant Douche. Yes, even us old farts watch South Park.
I don't know where to begin... First, the OP was complaining about a potential President Trump strengthening libel law. I stand by my assertion the the President cannot make law. I also stand by my assertion that neither a Republican nor Democratic controlled Congress would be less than enthusiastic about passing legislation on his behalf. There is already talk of replacing the Speaker for his non-support. You know... The third guy in line for the Presidential Office. There is NO widespread support among establishment Republicans for Trump. If he was as "crazy" in office as squigleslash thinks, NOBODY would play ball. They would turn on him in a minute.
As for Democrats not lining up to thwart a President Trump, you clearly have not been paying attention. Even Bernie Sanders has bowed down to lick Hillary's boots and that is after the DNC worked hard to kick him to the curb and she insulted his supporters. I'd say the odds of any Democrats supporting a Supreme Court nominee that you describe are very long, particularly after there have been no hearings for Obama's nominee. And yes, I think finding 40 (actually only 34) dissenting votes are pretty good especially given that predictions are that the Senate will likely change hands anyway. I'm not nearly as naive as you are cynical.
As for Comey being in the Republican pockets, Republicans claim just the opposite. Maybe you missed that whole email thing over the past few months they were on about. Given no grand jury was impaneled despite calls from Republicans doesn't lend to the credibility of Comey taking his marching orders from them.
You really think even the establishment Republicans would turn down a chance to flood the Supreme Court with authoritarian crazies if they're anti-abortion, for example?
I agree that they would be champing at the bit for that opportunity. Same as if it were any Republican President. The problem is that unless there are 67 votes in the Senate that would refuse to block such a nominee, it won't matter an iota. I cannot see the Democrats sitting on their hands over that one.
I'd also like to remind you that history has a habit of populaces underestimating the ability of a demagogue to inflict massive damage on a country when they gain power, by writing them off as "just a clown" or believing "He doesn't really mean that, he's just saying it to get support."
That's the beauty of our separation of powers form of government. Unless all branches are in relative agreement, nobody can inflict that massive damage. Personally, I think the Executive branch has grown too powerful over the years. The Congress has ceded power too often in the past decades. I think this could be the catalyst to take some of that back. And it's about time they did.
I am not going to predict the outcome of the election, but if Trump wins, I predict that his promise to strength libel law and thereby attack free speech is a sincere one. Unlike most of his other promises, this is one he can really deliver on, and I predict the Senate Democrats lack the intestinal fortitude to stop him.
You couldn't be more wrong. First of all, the executive does not get to make new laws, unless you count the executive orders that go beyond the scope of existing law. They eventually will get shot down by the courts though. Second, it's not just the Democrats that hate Trump. The "establishment" Republicans can't stand him either. He will not be able to get anything accomplished as President.
Some services are necessary for reasonable modern living, and Internet is becoming one of those.
Access to Internet is becoming a necessity in the modern world. There are many services these days that are only available through an Internet connection. i.e. Unemployment claims (in my state), many job applications, Social Security account access (although I read they were backtracking on that recently), and it is a requirement from my kids' school system.
TV service, maybe not so much. I dropped cable TV three years because my kids were spending their free time on YouTube and I didn't have much time to be worth the extra $100 on my cable bill. Internet, I kept...
In most places I've worked, if you were allowed to use Linux as your desktop OS at all; you were on your own and completely unsupported by IT, whether you needed it or nor.
Same here. They were clueless and I loved it. They weren't all up in my box all the time and I got my work done despite their "best practices." One time, they even sent out a flunkie to check out why my IP address was refusing when they pushed Windows updates. I had a good belly laugh over that one.
But don't care about exclusivity. I go for the experience and see both first run films and special presentations of classics. I prefer clean theaters with awesome staff and fresh concessions. That's where theater owners should focus: great popcorn served with an enthusiastic smile.
Reviews for low cost objects were getting pointless. If you search for something, the most "relevant" search would show an item with 350 reviews. 340 of those reviews were "incentivized." It was getting ridiculous. I would search through pages of reviews for any that were real customers. I started looking elsewhere for my online reviews and shopping.
It's irrelevant to you and some others, perhaps because you hate Apple, or iPhone, or lack of analysis.
I have no hate for Apple. I used to have an iPhone. In fact, after the Windows 10 update debacle, I looked into switching to Apple for my next laptop. However, I personally think dropping the headphone jack was boneheaded. And I think the constant enthusiasm for thinner & lighter at the expense of battery life is pretty dim too.
Your dismissal of wireless charging tells me that the "supersize whoosh" you hear might be for you. Whether or not you have to plug in a charging cable or place a phone in a precise location is irrelevant to the discussion I and the GP were having. There are no "technical considerations" in dispute and in fact Qi wireless charging worked wonderfully on my last phone. The important point is a matter of access to charging stations. I'm not tied to an office all the time, and I enjoy going places where there are no easily accessible USB ports, electric outlets, or phone chargers nearby. I don't want to have to worry if my battery will last until I get home. Millennial hipsters crack me up when I see them in a desperate search for an outlet to charge their junk wherever they go.
So my choices are:
a) A device with a talk time of 24 hours and explodes.
b) A device with a talk time of 12 hours and doesn't explode.
Kudos to Apple for prioritizing the right things.
My Nexus 5X has 16:57 (http://www.gsmarena.com/lg_nexus_5x_battery_test_results-blog-15120.php) talk time and it doesn't blow up. It also only cost me $249. And if it is like my Nexus 4, I'll keep it for 3 and a half years before I start looking for a replacement.
I left Apple after my iPhone 3G died because, for my usage case, they weren't even on the map when it comes to value for your money. I don't feel the need for the newest shiny and I have other things I want to spend my money on.
I don't really have a dog in this fight as I don't listen to music on my phone, but...
It's nice that you enjoy having more accessories that you need to keep charged. Do you have a big bank of chargers in the rec room to keep your speakers, headphones, the phone itself, etc. all topped off?
Remarkably little trouble, just plugging them little suckers in every so often. In fact, the action of plugging the headsets into the USB cable is - and get this - somewhat similar in activity and muscle meory to - who knew? - plugging in a wired headset!
I believe the GP's argument had very little to do with the amount of effort require to connect to the charger, but rather the fact that you are again tied to a charger for another short lived battery powered device. In fact, the summary emphasizes the battery life of the devices tested and charging more frequently. But... I'm guessing you were already aware of that and wanted to make some irrelevant point.
Slashdot Mirror
Ultimately this is why young people will avoid Facebook if they are not doing it already. It will become an echo chamber for the old.
This is already happening. Facebook is what mom and dad or grandma and grandpa use to share recipes and pictures of their dog. My daughter deleted her account after the election because of all the post election bickering. My younger kids have mostly abandoned theirs. Most of the still-in-school crowd has moved on to Instagram and Snapchat.
Most probably after we sent a pic of ours, you will have plucked your own eye out of their orbit, and ran away screaming off.
The goggles. They do nothing.
As a conservative myself, I yearn for the good-old-days back in the seventies when you could buy Playboy at the magazine rack of your local supermarket, streakers would crash sporting events, and you didn't get put on sexual predator registries for life and banned from ever living near schools or parks just for taking a piss in public.
Generations will look back at our folly and judge us like we judge the witch hunters of the seventeenth century.
That's your bar? You right to "feel" safe is priority over others rights as long as it doesn't violate their Civil Rights? Distracted driving isn't going to disappear just because people wouldn't be able to use mobile devices.
You don't want to restrict the rights of the person swinging their arm. You want to restrict everyone's rights. You're telling my kids that they can't play their games or text their friends during our 90 minute drive to grandma's house. Your safety is unaffected by them. What you want to call "reasonable safety" I would argue is quite unreasonable.
I hear a few (usually vocal) people advocate disabling cell phones within moving vehicles. Unfortunately for their particular solution, it appears from that the overwhelming majority of people seem to want to use their mobile devices in their cars. My afternoon commute is always occupied with mobile users - drivers and passengers - calling, texting, surfing, or emailing. If I had a very long passenger commute, rode a bus, car pooled, or took a train, (none of those apply to me) I would be first in line to tell them to shove it up their sanctimonious asses.
Obviously, there is no clear, workable and fair solution at present but the fact that the status quo "isn't acceptable" is not a reason to just DO SOMETHING. That's how we get things like the PATRIOT Act.
Well, if you were in WIN10 you'd already be home! Or, just wait for Linux to patch his fuckup, that somehow is your fault!
I am using WIN10. I'm still waiting for the patch to fix my DHCP that the last patch broke. It's too bad that I have no networking now so my wait for that patch might be a long one.
That is only one aspect. Yes. Abandoning children is bad. The woman I am dating has a working relationship with her ex and a 50/50 split on child rearing. I have seen the changes in her girls over time. There is no doubt that the divorce has affected them negatively. One of her girls has had very negative changes.
My son's best friend has a broken family. The mother has custody with the dad having visitation. Dad seems to be a great parent and never misses a visitation. I've seen him with his kids all over town taking them to events but I have seen the negative changes in this kid as a result of the divorce as well.
Bipolar has very little to do with separation anxiety. The kids had abandonment issues. My middle son had attachment issues with women. That's the result of a broken marriage, not living with a mom with mental health issues.
Bipolar != Schizephrenia. Bipolar people are functional. During a high, they go without sleep, have unrealistic delusions of ability and make poor judgment decisions especially with money and work. During a low, they mope around and sleep a lot. My ex is not Shelley Duvall crazy. She does do some real stupid shit when she is manic though.
I will say that my oldest expressed a relief that her mother was finally out of the house. Sure it was harder on all of us for many reasons, but the tension and arguments were finally gone.
Divorce is arguably bad. However, sometimes the alternatives are worse. I've seen divorces where one spouse does everything they can to hurt the person they vowed to stay committed to for the rest of their life. I've seen divorces where one spouse puts the other into the poor house over their anger. I've seen parents try to hurt their ex through their kids. Yes. People suck.
Think of it this way. On the most basic level, divorce is bad because a marriage and family are now broken. That in itself is sad. The relative ease of divorce reduces the amount of commitment that a person needs to keep things together and to make things work. It's easy to just give up. Nobody wants to try. Yes, sometimes there is no way to make things work. Sometimes divorce is necessary but make no mistake, the result is not a total positive.
I'm not the suicidal type. During the worst parts of our marriage, it never once entered my mind. Then again, I'm not bipolar or depressive. Just FYI, I did not want the marriage to end at the time and I did whatever I could to save it, but as I stated before, it was the best thing that could have happened to me. As for the kids, the jury is still out on that.
There is an old adage that says "Men marry women believing that they will never change. Women marry men believing they can make them change. They are both wrong." The woman I divorced bore very little resemblance to the one I married.
Please re-read my original post. I believe I was clear on the point.
He did become homeless. Or rather, had to go live with his elderly father. She went through his finances and walked out on him just like she did me. She left him with nothing but debt. Shortly after that, she tried to convince me to take her in when her finances went to shit. I declined. My youngest would have been devastated when she left again even if it was only "a few weeks for getting on her feet." I had pity for her, but not enough to damage my kids any more.
I think my original post may have been confusing. Unquestionably, divorce is bad. With children, it is doubly bad. That does not preclude it from being necessary. Sometimes the alternatives are worse.
I guess you have never had to hold a crying five-year-old who misses his mommy who left her family.
Mind you. I'm not complaining. Looking in the rear view mirror, divorce was the absolute best thing that could have happened to me. I am way happier being rid of a woman who devolved over the years into a bipolar nut case who refused to stay on her meds. However, the kids all did suffer in many ways being without their mother including suffering from various levels of separation anxiety for years.
If you want objective cases why divorce is bad, divorce results in dividing a home into two homes. It is considerably more expensive to operate two households than a single one. Therefore, all parties suffer financially when resources are spread thinner. Many cases of divorce result in bankruptcy of one or both parties. The result is a drain on society. Too many single parent homes are living below the poverty level. In my particular case, I received very minimal child support ($200 for four kids) and I suddenly had to find daycare and swallow all the associated expenses. We, as a family, had to accept a lower standard of living during those years.
Divorce is not a simple boyfriend/girlfriend break up where everyone walks on their merry way, free and clear, when kids are involved; it gets way messier. Should someone stay in an abusive relationship? No, but don't delude yourself that divorce is a quick simple remedy to relationship problems. My ex has already married and divorced again since we split and her husband ended up in bankruptcy court for his trouble too.
No, no, no!
That was OJ! It was OJ who said he was going to spend the rest of his life looking for Nicole's killer.
Obviously, OJ thought Nicole's killer was a golfer who spent most of his time on Florida golf courses. OJ was right, too.
Cut the Juice some slack. He's trying harder. He's infiltrated a prison doing recon. Now that's selflessness.
My 2008 Prius has a way to update the maps -- A DVD from Toyota containing one (1) map update, which costs more than two (2) brand-new Garmin GPS systems with included lifetime map update.
Exactly. Her Camry is a 2005 and the dealer has to upgrade the maps (or so they said). The cost was outrageous. Doesn't matter, the interface is awful anyway. We use Waze in her car. Waaaaay better.
... never buying a built-in navigation system ever again. Fool me twice, shame on me... Google Maps lets me download maps for an area I'm going to that might not have service, so I'll just use my phone from now on.
I am in the market for new car right now. No satnav is on my must-have list.
I'm just guessing.... that maaaaybe these legislators don't ride the bus often?
Not legislators, bureaucrats (NHTSA). That is the problem. These "regulators" are always looking for new ways to justify their jobs. If they don't come out with new and improved ideas for us little people regardless of the practicality, usefulness, or hardship on those little people, Congress may not think they need as big a budget next year. It's a good thing they always know what's best for us. Mommy can't be around forever, you know.
My girlfriend has a Camry with a fancy Navigation System. It's useless. The passenger cannot change anything as long as the car is in gear. We end up using our phones when going anywhere in her car. It's a $1,000 white elephant. It also sucks for trying to find a destination anyway.
You hit the nail on the head. During the primaries, only Chris Christie and Bernie Sanders ever bothered to answer the questions that were asked. Every other candidate would ramble off on some subject that only indirectly had anything to do with the issue at hand. Whether you like them or not, at least you knew where they stood. Yet Republicans chose a clown with absolutely no filter between his brain and his mouth and Democrats chose a career liar that thinks laws apply only to the little people and would push her own daughter in front of a bus to get elected. It's utterly disgusting.
Bulls-eye again. No matter what transgression you point out, partisans on sides point across the table and scream, "But they did that!" No matter who we get, you can expect more of whatever they did in the past. If/when HRC wins, her apologists will justify it again. "I know it looks bad, but it wasn't actually criminal." Or if/when Trump shoots off his mouth on day one, you can expect more: "But that's not what he meant..."
We finally got a color TV in spring of 1975 and it could tune UHF (woo hoo). Color certainly wasn't universal by 1968. There were lots of riff raff living with black and white in the early seventies. A color TV set in 1975 was hundreds of dollars, and my dad bought a brand new car (Datsun) for less that $3,000 in 1976. Our old set was a nice piece of real wood furniture, but it did not have a record player in it. One of my uncles did have one. It had a nice walnut panel on the top that slid to the side to reveal the turntable. It was pretty cool!
Dude, you're way off. I remember Nixon and the endless televised hearings over ALL THREE channels on our black and white console TV. He engendered the type of universal dislike from both sides of the aisle that a President Trump will have. Trump wouldn't be able to fart without a Congressional investigation. Hillary may be the same though. I expect the animosity for her may cause four years of investigation in he House assuming they don't try to impeach right away. Whatever the case, I certainly hope our choices are better in four years. It's gonna be a rough ride whatever happens. FWIW, I know there are a lot of HRC apologists here that think I'm a Trump supporter, but I supported Bernie. I won't vote for Turd Sandwich or Giant Douche. Yes, even us old farts watch South Park.
I don't know where to begin... First, the OP was complaining about a potential President Trump strengthening libel law. I stand by my assertion the the President cannot make law. I also stand by my assertion that neither a Republican nor Democratic controlled Congress would be less than enthusiastic about passing legislation on his behalf. There is already talk of replacing the Speaker for his non-support. You know... The third guy in line for the Presidential Office. There is NO widespread support among establishment Republicans for Trump. If he was as "crazy" in office as squigleslash thinks, NOBODY would play ball. They would turn on him in a minute.
As for Democrats not lining up to thwart a President Trump, you clearly have not been paying attention. Even Bernie Sanders has bowed down to lick Hillary's boots and that is after the DNC worked hard to kick him to the curb and she insulted his supporters. I'd say the odds of any Democrats supporting a Supreme Court nominee that you describe are very long, particularly after there have been no hearings for Obama's nominee. And yes, I think finding 40 (actually only 34) dissenting votes are pretty good especially given that predictions are that the Senate will likely change hands anyway. I'm not nearly as naive as you are cynical.
As for Comey being in the Republican pockets, Republicans claim just the opposite. Maybe you missed that whole email thing over the past few months they were on about. Given no grand jury was impaneled despite calls from Republicans doesn't lend to the credibility of Comey taking his marching orders from them.
I agree that they would be champing at the bit for that opportunity. Same as if it were any Republican President. The problem is that unless there are 67 votes in the Senate that would refuse to block such a nominee, it won't matter an iota. I cannot see the Democrats sitting on their hands over that one.
That's the beauty of our separation of powers form of government. Unless all branches are in relative agreement, nobody can inflict that massive damage. Personally, I think the Executive branch has grown too powerful over the years. The Congress has ceded power too often in the past decades. I think this could be the catalyst to take some of that back. And it's about time they did.
You couldn't be more wrong. First of all, the executive does not get to make new laws, unless you count the executive orders that go beyond the scope of existing law. They eventually will get shot down by the courts though. Second, it's not just the Democrats that hate Trump. The "establishment" Republicans can't stand him either. He will not be able to get anything accomplished as President.
Access to Internet is becoming a necessity in the modern world. There are many services these days that are only available through an Internet connection. i.e. Unemployment claims (in my state), many job applications, Social Security account access (although I read they were backtracking on that recently), and it is a requirement from my kids' school system.
TV service, maybe not so much. I dropped cable TV three years because my kids were spending their free time on YouTube and I didn't have much time to be worth the extra $100 on my cable bill. Internet, I kept...
In most places I've worked, if you were allowed to use Linux as your desktop OS at all; you were on your own and completely unsupported by IT, whether you needed it or nor.
Same here. They were clueless and I loved it. They weren't all up in my box all the time and I got my work done despite their "best practices." One time, they even sent out a flunkie to check out why my IP address was refusing when they pushed Windows updates. I had a good belly laugh over that one.
But don't care about exclusivity. I go for the experience and see both first run films and special presentations of classics. I prefer clean theaters with awesome staff and fresh concessions. That's where theater owners should focus: great popcorn served with an enthusiastic smile.
What color is the sky in your world?
Reviews for low cost objects were getting pointless. If you search for something, the most "relevant" search would show an item with 350 reviews. 340 of those reviews were "incentivized." It was getting ridiculous. I would search through pages of reviews for any that were real customers. I started looking elsewhere for my online reviews and shopping.
I have no hate for Apple. I used to have an iPhone. In fact, after the Windows 10 update debacle, I looked into switching to Apple for my next laptop. However, I personally think dropping the headphone jack was boneheaded. And I think the constant enthusiasm for thinner & lighter at the expense of battery life is pretty dim too.
Your dismissal of wireless charging tells me that the "supersize whoosh" you hear might be for you. Whether or not you have to plug in a charging cable or place a phone in a precise location is irrelevant to the discussion I and the GP were having. There are no "technical considerations" in dispute and in fact Qi wireless charging worked wonderfully on my last phone. The important point is a matter of access to charging stations. I'm not tied to an office all the time, and I enjoy going places where there are no easily accessible USB ports, electric outlets, or phone chargers nearby. I don't want to have to worry if my battery will last until I get home. Millennial hipsters crack me up when I see them in a desperate search for an outlet to charge their junk wherever they go.
So my choices are: a) A device with a talk time of 24 hours and explodes. b) A device with a talk time of 12 hours and doesn't explode.
Kudos to Apple for prioritizing the right things.
My Nexus 5X has 16:57 (http://www.gsmarena.com/lg_nexus_5x_battery_test_results-blog-15120.php) talk time and it doesn't blow up. It also only cost me $249. And if it is like my Nexus 4, I'll keep it for 3 and a half years before I start looking for a replacement.
I left Apple after my iPhone 3G died because, for my usage case, they weren't even on the map when it comes to value for your money. I don't feel the need for the newest shiny and I have other things I want to spend my money on.
I believe the GP's argument had very little to do with the amount of effort require to connect to the charger, but rather the fact that you are again tied to a charger for another short lived battery powered device. In fact, the summary emphasizes the battery life of the devices tested and charging more frequently. But... I'm guessing you were already aware of that and wanted to make some irrelevant point.