Either you can't take a joke or you seem to be on a legitimate frantic search for an explanation for the origin of these children. Keep looking man - I wish you the best!
My point is that so many people looking for a handout have developed these built up visions of how much wealth these people have that they literally say things like just one of them could support a "basic living income" for the entire country.
Yes, rich people have a lot of money. No - even if you took at all it isn't going to be economically feasible to just sit home and not work.
Elon Musk is worth 11.1 billion dollars. There are 318.9 million Americans.
If you took ever dollar he had and distributed it to all Americans we'd each get a little less than $35. You seriously overestimate how much those "1%" can do.
There is more potential for unrest and civil war in the US than for basic income.
Honestly I see that as inevitable at this point, barring a voluntary and non-violent separation of the country.
Regardless of what side of the political spectrum you may fall on, there's no denying that the USA is a DEEPLY divided country ideologically. It may teeter on who's dominant for voting from one election to the next, but it's close enough to a 50/50 split that when it comes to national elections regardless of who wins you basically have the other half of the country that feels as if their world is going to unravel.
Like I said - it doesn't really even matter anymore WHO wins the elections - the schism is so great that I don't think we'll be able to stand as a single country for much longer. IMHO I would love if we could just peacefully draw a border to split the country and part ways amicably. Anyone who ends up in a region that they don't agree with after the borders are drawn can immediately transfer citizen ship to the other side. Somehow though, I kinda doubt it will end up that well. It won't likely be in the next year, two, or even five, but in the next 15-25 years things are going to come to a head.
Democracy isn't about determining the "best" course of action. It's about people deciding on their own governmental decisions. The "best" course of action might well be achieved through fascism, but that doesn't mean that it's preferable or right.
Put bluntly - people have the right to make their own choices - even bad ones (particularly when "bad" is subjective), and if you respect the concept of Democracy at all then that concept of allowing them to make their own choices - good or bad - must apply not only on a personal level but also on a governmental level as well.
How many times should they run it? I mean really what is the point of Democracy if you're going to do a literal vote on "Do you want to do XYX?", and when the result is "Yes" by a small margin you just keep running it again until you get the "No" that YOU wanted and finally say "Ok - thanks - we just wanted to be sure.".
A vote is not a vote if there's a desired result and you call a mulligan if it doesn't turn out how you want.
Regardless of the outcome - a majority of people voted to leave the EU. Any shenanigans pulled to try and overturn their will "for their best interests" is basically just tossing out the idea of Democracy.
It's not surprising - Twitter is a dot-com bubble company a decade after it happened.
That was the ORIGINAL problem with many internet companies. They could find out how to draw in lots of users and get popular - they just couldn't find a way to actually make any money from it.
Depending on the site, SOME companies can make enough off ad revenue to be successful, but Twitter has never managed to do so. And I'm not sure it will work there. With their format of limited post length and being largely a spew of conciousness they've to some degree attracted a userbase that has a short attention span. It's hard to effectively put ads in front of them.
There are plenty of internet based companies that have figured out how to thrive - Amazon, Ebay, Netflix, Google, etc - but I'm not sure Twitter will last. If it goes away I don't think there will be too much of a problem though. Social media as a phenomenon will likely continue just fine. Facebook (who also runs Instagram) is operating in the black.
No less than most other entertainment - and more than a lot given how its used to spread news.
I mean really - just about everything except farming, housing, and medicine could be considered "superfluous" industries depending on how persnickety you feel like being.
That's a dumb argument. That's like arguing that we don't punish murderers because all they did was prove that a skull is inadequate to stand up to an axe.
DELIBERATELY damaging something isn't just showing a weakness - its destructive, and rather pointless.
Bringing down large portions of the internet is much more than a mild inconvenience. People work on the internet. Entire industries revolve around it. Disruptions have serious financial impacts that can threaten the livelihood of families. I don't necessarily think it should warrant a death sentence - but don't brush it off is a trivial matter either.
IMHO - it should carry a LENGTHY prison sentence. 10 years minimum. And any country that doesn't match mandatory sentencing guidelines or that doesn't investigate abuses seriously should be disconnected from the main network.
I'm sure many wouldn't mind, but see there's not really open land to just live on anymore. Most of it is either privately owned or public land that forbids camping.
And if you figure you'll hunt/gather? Everyone - even the homeless - are still subject to game seasons. Kinda hard to live off of hunting deer if its only legal to hunt them for a month or two out of the year.
The simple fact is that if you are broke, you can't just go live off the land like our ancestors did without breaking a myriad of laws and getting arrested. I'm not one for expansive social programs - I'm actually fairly conservative. However I think that as a public service we should absolutely provide a basic facility to house anyone without a permanent residence. It needn't be extravagant, but IMHO providing them with a bunk, a shower, and 3 basic no-frills meals until they can get back on their feet should be obvious. Otherwise you have people who get into a rut that they can basically never climb back out of.
If you don't most of them are going to resort to crime and you'll be providing all those things anyways - why not provide them in a way to promote getting people off the system ASAP?
You do realize that it's a very dangerous idea to buy a gun that you only ever shoot when you need it right?
Unlike in the Walking Dead - guns to shoot tiny laser guided bullets. It takes a lot of skill to not only operate the gun in a safe manner, but also to actually hit what you're shooting at. If you only pull the gun out "when you have to" - it likely will do more harm than good.
Any responsible gun owner should practice with at least 100 rounds every few months at a bare minimum.
For a user of moderate skill? Yes, the Glock is better. I say that as someone who owns a semi-custom 1911 that cost me just shy of $3000. A 1911 just tends to be more temperamental. You can get them to be mostly reliable, but even the best tuned 1911 is still merely on part with an out of the box $500 Glock when it comes to reliability. The thumb safety also takes more training to get used to vs the Glock's point-and-shoot. The magazine well on the Glock, being a double-stack, also makes mag changes faster, and the magazines hold more making mag changes less frequent.
Granted, the 1911 does feel better in the hand, points more naturally, and is generally a heck of a lot more accurate, but there's a reason 95% of all police departments carry Glocks.
I'd consider the 1911 akin to a sports car. In the right hands you can get a lot more performance, but for your average driver they'd be better served by a Camry with an auto-transmission.
You know - I'm not even really against the pipeline. IMHO the protesters are over blowing the concerns and construction should have been going ahead.
THAT SAID - the way the authorities have been treating the protesters is absolutely mind boggling. They have a right to protest - and people have a right to film it. Trumping up "riot" charges because you don't like what they're saying is not just sour grapes - it's unconstitutional.
I'm not even sure about my position on the pipeline itself anymore, but everyone involved in the handling of the protests should be either voted out/recalled if elected, or fired if not elected.
The point is that you start giving people a NEW email address and try to get most to start sending there, but for anyone who you miss and doesn't get the updated address, you won't miss their messages. Sure those will still be scanned, but over time the messages coming through Yahoo should be a smaller and smaller percentage of your overall email volume.
Resolution has nothing to do with the uncanny valley.
A 50 year old television broadcast looks terrible quality wise compared to a scene from Halo 5 - but the human mind still understands that the video recording despite being much lower resolution is still "real".
That's a rendering problem - not a display problem.
Also, for many things, you don't necessarily need to render the world. VR needn't only be games - just as TV's aren't only games but also video content. VR can also be a mix of pre-recorded and live content that is simply experienced. How may people wouldn't mind being able to actually stand on the field and watch the Superbowl, and be on stage at a concert?
Looks at the popularity of things like "haunted house" attractions this time of year when it's mostly a walk-through experience. Something like that that is based on real video but with special effects and post-processing could be MUCH more scary (and much higher quality - kinda like movies freed you from seeing the local theater troupe and let people start seeing performances from the best actors in the world).
Like, I've talked to a few people online who write the whole thing off because they tried some GearVR plastic cell phone box, and those are pointlessly terrible.
I think that's part of the problem for me. I've still not tried a "real" VR headset like an Occulus or Vive because I don't visit trade shows and I don't know anyone with one. I HAVE tried a Google Cardboard knockoff with a cellphone and the effect was a huge letdown. It FELT like looking at a little screen in front of my face in a box. I'd love to try a better one but at $500-$700 that's not a purchase I can make on a whim just in case I might like it.
4K tv's have displays sitting in big box stores that you can walk by. Heck when I got my first Nintendo as a kid it was because I saw one at someone else's house and just HAD to have one. If HTC or Occulus wants to sell me a VR headset - there needs to be one sitting in Walmart or Best Buy for me to go try - even if for 30 seconds - just to gauge how immersive it is and if it's worth the price.
Well, I'm definitely opposed to this law, but think about your example: regardless of whether you know Anthony Hopkins age or not (I certainly don't know it without looking it up), he is visually and obviously unsuited to that role.
Consider more a case of Emily Kinney, whose age was at one time a bit hard to look up. She was pretty convincingly portraying Beth Greene on The Walking Dead - a 16-17 year old character - while the actress was in her late 20's.
You have to think of cases where people CAN'T really tell that the person isn't suited for the role just by looking at them.
Exactly. Loser pays all system basically means you DO NOT sue a big company regardless of how solid you think your claim is. I don't care if Microsoft wrote a program that caused my computer to intentionally come to life and shoot my dog, I wouldn't sue them for fear of maybe just POSSIBLY losing, which would mean I'm on the hook for their legal fees and I'm basically screwed for life.
Now, loser pays some capped portion of the opponent's legal fees and I could get behind that.
The Supreme Court hasn't seem to have made any rulings lately that I'd say are too far off-base, and their title *SUPREME* court basically means that they're the ones tasked with interpreting what the constitution means. You might as well accuse Hermin Melville of not knowing the ending of Moby Dick.
Of course I'm guessing your post is just another one of those "government is bad, mmmkay" type posts where everyone is always doing everything wrong despite never including any actual examples. It's always easier to bring generic discontent than specific talking points.
Checking Best Buy's website it doesn't mention any restocking fee. As a matter of fact a search on it indicates that Best Buy did away with virtually all their restocking fees back in 2010.
I was doing that 6-7 years ago, but I haven't worried about "driver support" for anything in Linux in about that long. Almost everything works these days - intentional sabotage by competitors being the obvious exception.
My cars been paid for for ~6 years now. Insurance is $37 per month. Fuel is about $80 per month. Maintenance comes in waves but averages around $50 per month. I don't know of anywhere within 60 miles that doesn't have parking included as part of a lease (and I personally own a home anyways so my driveway doesn't cost extra).
It seems like people try to nickel and dime THEMSELVES when it comes to justify a purchase. Car ownership isn't that expensive.
That's why I've stuck with Verizon. I live in a small town. Pretty much every major carrier has service here, but for most of them this is the edge of their coverage area - with Verizon it's in the middle.
If I drive even 2 miles outside of town in the wrong direction almost all of them will drop out whilst Verizon will hold a signal out for 20-30 more miles. My parents and my brother both live outside of all the other areas but within Verizon's service area. If I want to have signal when I'm at their houses, I pretty much HAVE to use Verizon.
FWIW though, I've never really had trouble out of them. I still haven't had any strange data usage show up on my account, and maybe I'm just cynical, but in general knowing how incompetent the average person is when it comes to understanding networks I'm betting many others don't really understand it either. I've known quite a few people to accidentally turn their Wifi off and be using mobile data for extended periods of time without realizing it.
Wow. Uh, no! First off, if she sues them (which is what I was clearly indicating should happen), SHE's the plaintiff.
What is she going to sue for? In order to bring a suit you have to state damages. If she hasn't paid the fine she hasn't been damaged. If she does pay it she's essentially agreeing to it.
You can't just sue to "not pay a bill", unless she somehow wants to somehow claim that receiving the bill caused emotional distress for which she's due compensation (fat chance). She has the choice of ignoring it, and if so Verizon can sue for damages, in which case she'd need to lawyer up in response.
Slashdot Mirror
Either you can't take a joke or you seem to be on a legitimate frantic search for an explanation for the origin of these children. Keep looking man - I wish you the best!
My point is that so many people looking for a handout have developed these built up visions of how much wealth these people have that they literally say things like just one of them could support a "basic living income" for the entire country.
Yes, rich people have a lot of money. No - even if you took at all it isn't going to be economically feasible to just sit home and not work.
Elon Musk is worth 11.1 billion dollars. There are 318.9 million Americans.
If you took ever dollar he had and distributed it to all Americans we'd each get a little less than $35. You seriously overestimate how much those "1%" can do.
There is more potential for unrest and civil war in the US than for basic income.
Honestly I see that as inevitable at this point, barring a voluntary and non-violent separation of the country.
Regardless of what side of the political spectrum you may fall on, there's no denying that the USA is a DEEPLY divided country ideologically. It may teeter on who's dominant for voting from one election to the next, but it's close enough to a 50/50 split that when it comes to national elections regardless of who wins you basically have the other half of the country that feels as if their world is going to unravel.
Like I said - it doesn't really even matter anymore WHO wins the elections - the schism is so great that I don't think we'll be able to stand as a single country for much longer. IMHO I would love if we could just peacefully draw a border to split the country and part ways amicably. Anyone who ends up in a region that they don't agree with after the borders are drawn can immediately transfer citizen ship to the other side. Somehow though, I kinda doubt it will end up that well. It won't likely be in the next year, two, or even five, but in the next 15-25 years things are going to come to a head.
Democracy isn't about determining the "best" course of action. It's about people deciding on their own governmental decisions. The "best" course of action might well be achieved through fascism, but that doesn't mean that it's preferable or right.
Put bluntly - people have the right to make their own choices - even bad ones (particularly when "bad" is subjective), and if you respect the concept of Democracy at all then that concept of allowing them to make their own choices - good or bad - must apply not only on a personal level but also on a governmental level as well.
How many times should they run it? I mean really what is the point of Democracy if you're going to do a literal vote on "Do you want to do XYX?", and when the result is "Yes" by a small margin you just keep running it again until you get the "No" that YOU wanted and finally say "Ok - thanks - we just wanted to be sure.".
A vote is not a vote if there's a desired result and you call a mulligan if it doesn't turn out how you want.
Regardless of the outcome - a majority of people voted to leave the EU. Any shenanigans pulled to try and overturn their will "for their best interests" is basically just tossing out the idea of Democracy.
It's not surprising - Twitter is a dot-com bubble company a decade after it happened.
That was the ORIGINAL problem with many internet companies. They could find out how to draw in lots of users and get popular - they just couldn't find a way to actually make any money from it.
Depending on the site, SOME companies can make enough off ad revenue to be successful, but Twitter has never managed to do so. And I'm not sure it will work there. With their format of limited post length and being largely a spew of conciousness they've to some degree attracted a userbase that has a short attention span. It's hard to effectively put ads in front of them.
There are plenty of internet based companies that have figured out how to thrive - Amazon, Ebay, Netflix, Google, etc - but I'm not sure Twitter will last. If it goes away I don't think there will be too much of a problem though. Social media as a phenomenon will likely continue just fine. Facebook (who also runs Instagram) is operating in the black.
No less than most other entertainment - and more than a lot given how its used to spread news.
I mean really - just about everything except farming, housing, and medicine could be considered "superfluous" industries depending on how persnickety you feel like being.
That's a dumb argument. That's like arguing that we don't punish murderers because all they did was prove that a skull is inadequate to stand up to an axe.
DELIBERATELY damaging something isn't just showing a weakness - its destructive, and rather pointless.
Bringing down large portions of the internet is much more than a mild inconvenience. People work on the internet. Entire industries revolve around it. Disruptions have serious financial impacts that can threaten the livelihood of families. I don't necessarily think it should warrant a death sentence - but don't brush it off is a trivial matter either.
IMHO - it should carry a LENGTHY prison sentence. 10 years minimum. And any country that doesn't match mandatory sentencing guidelines or that doesn't investigate abuses seriously should be disconnected from the main network.
I'm sure many wouldn't mind, but see there's not really open land to just live on anymore. Most of it is either privately owned or public land that forbids camping.
And if you figure you'll hunt/gather? Everyone - even the homeless - are still subject to game seasons. Kinda hard to live off of hunting deer if its only legal to hunt them for a month or two out of the year.
The simple fact is that if you are broke, you can't just go live off the land like our ancestors did without breaking a myriad of laws and getting arrested. I'm not one for expansive social programs - I'm actually fairly conservative. However I think that as a public service we should absolutely provide a basic facility to house anyone without a permanent residence. It needn't be extravagant, but IMHO providing them with a bunk, a shower, and 3 basic no-frills meals until they can get back on their feet should be obvious. Otherwise you have people who get into a rut that they can basically never climb back out of.
If you don't most of them are going to resort to crime and you'll be providing all those things anyways - why not provide them in a way to promote getting people off the system ASAP?
You do realize that it's a very dangerous idea to buy a gun that you only ever shoot when you need it right?
Unlike in the Walking Dead - guns to shoot tiny laser guided bullets. It takes a lot of skill to not only operate the gun in a safe manner, but also to actually hit what you're shooting at. If you only pull the gun out "when you have to" - it likely will do more harm than good.
Any responsible gun owner should practice with at least 100 rounds every few months at a bare minimum.
For a user of moderate skill? Yes, the Glock is better. I say that as someone who owns a semi-custom 1911 that cost me just shy of $3000. A 1911 just tends to be more temperamental. You can get them to be mostly reliable, but even the best tuned 1911 is still merely on part with an out of the box $500 Glock when it comes to reliability. The thumb safety also takes more training to get used to vs the Glock's point-and-shoot. The magazine well on the Glock, being a double-stack, also makes mag changes faster, and the magazines hold more making mag changes less frequent.
Granted, the 1911 does feel better in the hand, points more naturally, and is generally a heck of a lot more accurate, but there's a reason 95% of all police departments carry Glocks.
I'd consider the 1911 akin to a sports car. In the right hands you can get a lot more performance, but for your average driver they'd be better served by a Camry with an auto-transmission.
You know - I'm not even really against the pipeline. IMHO the protesters are over blowing the concerns and construction should have been going ahead.
THAT SAID - the way the authorities have been treating the protesters is absolutely mind boggling. They have a right to protest - and people have a right to film it. Trumping up "riot" charges because you don't like what they're saying is not just sour grapes - it's unconstitutional.
I'm not even sure about my position on the pipeline itself anymore, but everyone involved in the handling of the protests should be either voted out/recalled if elected, or fired if not elected.
The point is that you start giving people a NEW email address and try to get most to start sending there, but for anyone who you miss and doesn't get the updated address, you won't miss their messages. Sure those will still be scanned, but over time the messages coming through Yahoo should be a smaller and smaller percentage of your overall email volume.
Resolution has nothing to do with the uncanny valley.
A 50 year old television broadcast looks terrible quality wise compared to a scene from Halo 5 - but the human mind still understands that the video recording despite being much lower resolution is still "real".
That's a rendering problem - not a display problem.
Also, for many things, you don't necessarily need to render the world. VR needn't only be games - just as TV's aren't only games but also video content. VR can also be a mix of pre-recorded and live content that is simply experienced. How may people wouldn't mind being able to actually stand on the field and watch the Superbowl, and be on stage at a concert?
Looks at the popularity of things like "haunted house" attractions this time of year when it's mostly a walk-through experience. Something like that that is based on real video but with special effects and post-processing could be MUCH more scary (and much higher quality - kinda like movies freed you from seeing the local theater troupe and let people start seeing performances from the best actors in the world).
Like, I've talked to a few people online who write the whole thing off because they tried some GearVR plastic cell phone box, and those are pointlessly terrible.
I think that's part of the problem for me. I've still not tried a "real" VR headset like an Occulus or Vive because I don't visit trade shows and I don't know anyone with one. I HAVE tried a Google Cardboard knockoff with a cellphone and the effect was a huge letdown. It FELT like looking at a little screen in front of my face in a box. I'd love to try a better one but at $500-$700 that's not a purchase I can make on a whim just in case I might like it.
4K tv's have displays sitting in big box stores that you can walk by. Heck when I got my first Nintendo as a kid it was because I saw one at someone else's house and just HAD to have one. If HTC or Occulus wants to sell me a VR headset - there needs to be one sitting in Walmart or Best Buy for me to go try - even if for 30 seconds - just to gauge how immersive it is and if it's worth the price.
Well, I'm definitely opposed to this law, but think about your example: regardless of whether you know Anthony Hopkins age or not (I certainly don't know it without looking it up), he is visually and obviously unsuited to that role.
Consider more a case of Emily Kinney, whose age was at one time a bit hard to look up. She was pretty convincingly portraying Beth Greene on The Walking Dead - a 16-17 year old character - while the actress was in her late 20's.
You have to think of cases where people CAN'T really tell that the person isn't suited for the role just by looking at them.
Exactly. Loser pays all system basically means you DO NOT sue a big company regardless of how solid you think your claim is. I don't care if Microsoft wrote a program that caused my computer to intentionally come to life and shoot my dog, I wouldn't sue them for fear of maybe just POSSIBLY losing, which would mean I'm on the hook for their legal fees and I'm basically screwed for life.
Now, loser pays some capped portion of the opponent's legal fees and I could get behind that.
The Supreme Court hasn't seem to have made any rulings lately that I'd say are too far off-base, and their title *SUPREME* court basically means that they're the ones tasked with interpreting what the constitution means. You might as well accuse Hermin Melville of not knowing the ending of Moby Dick.
Of course I'm guessing your post is just another one of those "government is bad, mmmkay" type posts where everyone is always doing everything wrong despite never including any actual examples. It's always easier to bring generic discontent than specific talking points.
Checking Best Buy's website it doesn't mention any restocking fee. As a matter of fact a search on it indicates that Best Buy did away with virtually all their restocking fees back in 2010.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/he...
Did you do any research or did you just assume the Best Buy is going to charge such a fee?
I was doing that 6-7 years ago, but I haven't worried about "driver support" for anything in Linux in about that long. Almost everything works these days - intentional sabotage by competitors being the obvious exception.
My cars been paid for for ~6 years now. Insurance is $37 per month. Fuel is about $80 per month. Maintenance comes in waves but averages around $50 per month. I don't know of anywhere within 60 miles that doesn't have parking included as part of a lease (and I personally own a home anyways so my driveway doesn't cost extra).
It seems like people try to nickel and dime THEMSELVES when it comes to justify a purchase. Car ownership isn't that expensive.
That's why I've stuck with Verizon. I live in a small town. Pretty much every major carrier has service here, but for most of them this is the edge of their coverage area - with Verizon it's in the middle.
If I drive even 2 miles outside of town in the wrong direction almost all of them will drop out whilst Verizon will hold a signal out for 20-30 more miles. My parents and my brother both live outside of all the other areas but within Verizon's service area. If I want to have signal when I'm at their houses, I pretty much HAVE to use Verizon.
FWIW though, I've never really had trouble out of them. I still haven't had any strange data usage show up on my account, and maybe I'm just cynical, but in general knowing how incompetent the average person is when it comes to understanding networks I'm betting many others don't really understand it either. I've known quite a few people to accidentally turn their Wifi off and be using mobile data for extended periods of time without realizing it.
Wow. Uh, no! First off, if she sues them (which is what I was clearly indicating should happen), SHE's the plaintiff.
What is she going to sue for? In order to bring a suit you have to state damages. If she hasn't paid the fine she hasn't been damaged. If she does pay it she's essentially agreeing to it.
You can't just sue to "not pay a bill", unless she somehow wants to somehow claim that receiving the bill caused emotional distress for which she's due compensation (fat chance). She has the choice of ignoring it, and if so Verizon can sue for damages, in which case she'd need to lawyer up in response.