Go watch a couple hours of Dave Rubin's youtube channel and get back to me.
Well, there's a compelling argument. "Go watch some random person spout garbage on Youtube that they were too lazy or incompetent to write down." Sure, I'll get right on that.
What's wrong with making two versions like they used to? How hard is that? One for most people who just watch videos and play games. Another for people who need to get work done on their computers. It isn't rocket science, or particularly complicated to have TWO versions instead of ONE.
... as long as they're served from the domain that I'm visiting. Just like print media up until a few years ago, there's nothing to say that websites can't sell ads to legitimate advertisers and put up advertisements. I'd have no problem with that. I won't submit any of my computers, though, to any of the garbage ad networks out there (Google, Facebook, etc.).
Like the subject says. If I'm doing something important and bandwidth intensive, I'm using a laptop and Wi-fi or even better, ethernet. My cell service could have a million G's, and it wouldn't change how I operate.
A large retainer for lawyers to issue copyright takedowns for any EU access to my comments on any social media, which I own the copyright to.
That's cute. From https://www.facebook.com/legal...: "Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights (like photos or videos) on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). This means, for example, that if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy, and share it with others (again, consistent with your settings) such as service providers that support our service or other Facebook Products you use. "
We have two choices for internet access (like most Americans). They both suck. Over the years, one will get bad, and the other will improve, so we generally switch ISP's every 3-5 years. Sometimes quicker. We often have a leftover contract. We just let the shitty ISP dangle. The ship it off to collections and ding our credit. I don't really give a shit and just ignore them.
We need internet access regulated by the Feds asap. The current situation sucks.
When the private platform is the only platform for speech then it is just as bad as any goverment censorship.
It could be, if this were the case. I can't think of any example of this in modern times, though. We have the Internet. Anybody can communicate with anybody else.
You can disable Facebook all you want on your Android device, but I'll bet a lot of money that google already sells that same information to Facebook and everybody else with a few bucks.
I personally pay credit/debit card fees for my business. They're about 3% of gross, when all is said and done. That's a lot of fucking money, that's not, in my opinion, worth 3%. Personally, I always use cash, when possible, because I refuse to give those Visa/MC leeches one more penny.
Part of the reason (but not the entire reason) that I still use a Windows Phone when I need to use a smart phone is that the interface is really good. I have an Android phone for testing, and I've used a relative's iPhone, but those are both messes compared to the Windows Phone.
- Pay for your email
- Don't use social media
- Don't use a smartphone
That gets you like 95% of the way there, but I don't know anybody other than myself who lives like this.
Neat! I gave up on Apple making serious hardware years ago. I get my *nix meets met via Virtualbox on Windows on *any* size laptop with *any* amount of RAM and *any* size hard drive I want, thanks.
I think that they're probably right. The amount of entertainment that Americans consume today is insane. Most are badly, *badly* addicted to their screens. From what I see, those who are addicted are already spending as much of their time on these things as possible, already. At some point, there is going to be significantly more entertainment produced than can be consumed profitably. I think that people who are not going to be addicted to the inanity of having to be constantly entertained aren't likely to suddenly become addicted, so I think that we are probably at peak entertainment right about now, at least in the US. The only way entertainment companies could sell more useless garbage to Americans would be if people started doing this:https://www.soundandvision.com/files/_images/200902/2172009173627.jpg
Where did you get your stats? The actual incidence of this kind of cancer is closer to 2.4% for men and 1.9% for women. (https://www.cancer.org/cancer/non-hodgkin-lymphoma/about/key-statistics.html). That means that exposure to glycophosphate increases it to 3.38% and 2.68%, respectively. That's about an extra 1/100 people. 41% in this case seems to be pretty damn significant.
6 of one, half dozen of another. Whether you have them handing $3 billion in cash back to people, or you have people/companies living/doing business in NYC and simply not paying $3 billion in taxes, it's the exact same thing. So sure, you can say the individual employees will pay, but the company won't. It's the same thing. $3 billion is $3 billion.
Slashdot Mirror
Go watch a couple hours of Dave Rubin's youtube channel and get back to me.
Well, there's a compelling argument. "Go watch some random person spout garbage on Youtube that they were too lazy or incompetent to write down." Sure, I'll get right on that.
1. Media companies, again, up until less than a decade ago, used actual salespeople.
2. So...?
What's wrong with making two versions like they used to? How hard is that? One for most people who just watch videos and play games. Another for people who need to get work done on their computers. It isn't rocket science, or particularly complicated to have TWO versions instead of ONE.
Well, except I didn't... Linkedin is Facebook (as is Instagram, etc).
... as long as they're served from the domain that I'm visiting. Just like print media up until a few years ago, there's nothing to say that websites can't sell ads to legitimate advertisers and put up advertisements. I'd have no problem with that. I won't submit any of my computers, though, to any of the garbage ad networks out there (Google, Facebook, etc.).
Like the subject says. If I'm doing something important and bandwidth intensive, I'm using a laptop and Wi-fi or even better, ethernet. My cell service could have a million G's, and it wouldn't change how I operate.
Recent reports show that even when they don't want it, app makers are reporting data to Facebook
There's a really simple solution to this, you know. Try reading your own sentence again and see if you can figure it out.
If you have a "smart" phone, you don't care about your data.
If you use Face/Twit/Chat, you don't care about your data.
If you use a "smart" speaker, you don't care about your data.
If you use Gmail, you don't care about your data.
If you use Amazon, you don't care about your data.
I personally don't know anybody (aside from myself) who cares about their data.
I think that Trump is a treasonous, stupid, nasty, piece of shit human. You're confused, AC, whoever you are.
A large retainer for lawyers to issue copyright takedowns for any EU access to my comments on any social media, which I own the copyright to.
That's cute. From https://www.facebook.com/legal...:
"Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights (like photos or videos) on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). This means, for example, that if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy, and share it with others (again, consistent with your settings) such as service providers that support our service or other Facebook Products you use. "
We have two choices for internet access (like most Americans). They both suck. Over the years, one will get bad, and the other will improve, so we generally switch ISP's every 3-5 years. Sometimes quicker. We often have a leftover contract. We just let the shitty ISP dangle. The ship it off to collections and ding our credit. I don't really give a shit and just ignore them.
We need internet access regulated by the Feds asap. The current situation sucks.
The only thing to do is not to use a smart phone. It's it's not the "apps", then it's Apple or Google.
When the private platform is the only platform for speech then it is just as bad as any goverment censorship.
It could be, if this were the case. I can't think of any example of this in modern times, though. We have the Internet. Anybody can communicate with anybody else.
You can disable Facebook all you want on your Android device, but I'll bet a lot of money that google already sells that same information to Facebook and everybody else with a few bucks.
I personally pay credit/debit card fees for my business. They're about 3% of gross, when all is said and done. That's a lot of fucking money, that's not, in my opinion, worth 3%. Personally, I always use cash, when possible, because I refuse to give those Visa/MC leeches one more penny.
Part of the reason (but not the entire reason) that I still use a Windows Phone when I need to use a smart phone is that the interface is really good. I have an Android phone for testing, and I've used a relative's iPhone, but those are both messes compared to the Windows Phone.
What the hell is Google registry? Something that only work on Google Internet? When I buy domain names, they're from ICANN registrars.
- Pay for your email - Don't use social media - Don't use a smartphone That gets you like 95% of the way there, but I don't know anybody other than myself who lives like this.
Neat! I gave up on Apple making serious hardware years ago. I get my *nix meets met via Virtualbox on Windows on *any* size laptop with *any* amount of RAM and *any* size hard drive I want, thanks.
I think that they're probably right. The amount of entertainment that Americans consume today is insane. Most are badly, *badly* addicted to their screens. From what I see, those who are addicted are already spending as much of their time on these things as possible, already. At some point, there is going to be significantly more entertainment produced than can be consumed profitably. I think that people who are not going to be addicted to the inanity of having to be constantly entertained aren't likely to suddenly become addicted, so I think that we are probably at peak entertainment right about now, at least in the US. The only way entertainment companies could sell more useless garbage to Americans would be if people started doing this:https://www.soundandvision.com/files/_images/200902/2172009173627.jpg
See the post immediately above yours.
The first step is to get Big Insurance out of the picture. That is a massive drag on society that adds nothing.
This is the inevitable logical conclusion of for-profit health care. I'm not at all surprised.
The US health care system is fucking awful (unless you're in the 1%). We need single payer now.
Where did you get your stats? The actual incidence of this kind of cancer is closer to 2.4% for men and 1.9% for women. (https://www.cancer.org/cancer/non-hodgkin-lymphoma/about/key-statistics.html). That means that exposure to glycophosphate increases it to 3.38% and 2.68%, respectively. That's about an extra 1/100 people. 41% in this case seems to be pretty damn significant.
6 of one, half dozen of another. Whether you have them handing $3 billion in cash back to people, or you have people/companies living/doing business in NYC and simply not paying $3 billion in taxes, it's the exact same thing. So sure, you can say the individual employees will pay, but the company won't. It's the same thing. $3 billion is $3 billion.