There are two different schools of thought when it comes to solving racial inequity issues. Once school recommends that we strive towards colorblindness in decision making, the other school suggests that we deliberately take color into account but in a more positive way.
When things are deeply out of whack, "positive" ("reverse" discrimination) force is needed. After the initial breakthrough occurs, it is better to use no force and allow things to occur more naturally (colorblindness) so the goal is not missed. The initial breakthrough has already happened. We should be striving for colorblindness.
People complained that Apple was just trying to force people to upgrade.
People will complain that the sun is too yellow. You can not please everyone; although you CAN please the majority of rational people. Denying people security updates (to buggy software) without also accepting "upgrades" that cause massive slowdowns and reduced usefulness is not reasonable or rational.
Because it was obviously phrased as a complaint.
Which exact words of the factual statement made it obvious to a native speaker that it was a complaint.
..you misunderstand the nuances, but it was a sarcastic and bitter complaint..
Whoah! Now I can understand the tone of plain text message easily being misunderstood but this is... way out there. I am suspecting your are putting your own biases into the words that I spoke. Please explain how you get sarcastic bitterness out of my words. The complaint part, I could, in theory, see. The sarcastic and bitter part? Just wow. I even specifically stated that I exclusively use unlocked international versions of phones with custom ROMs now so how could I possibly be bitter about the lameness of American carriers... especially since I am not even using them, I am overseas and have been for a long time.
Well yes, I suppose I am derailing your argument.
You have not addressed a single one of my points, much less refuted them. Permit me to restate them:
Fact: My experience with iPhones prior to the 4 indicate that there was significant slowness introduced with newer versions of iOS without significant new resource intensive features being added. Proposition: It was intentional. It is irrelevant if it was through "laziness" or maliciousness. Rebuttal: None. You did not directly address it at ALL except by claiming that I am whining sarcastically and bitterly about my experiences. Definitely not a rebuttal.
Fact: Android phones do not receive updates from American Carriers who control the ROM files on the phones that they sell. Proposition: This reduces or eliminates any potential desire for Google to try and slow down older phones through update mechanism. Rebuttal: None. You did not directly address it at ALL except by claiming that I am whining sarcastically and bitterly about my experiences. Again, definitely not a rebuttal.
That's the terminology we're using for when you show that someone's argument is full of shit? "derailing"? Ok, then yeah, that's what I'm doing.
Actually, you are not even close to doing it. Furthermore, derailing an argument means turning it (the argument) into uselessness because you can't stay on on the points. Arguments can be "won" that way, just as they can be won through logical fallacies. That does not mean you are right or correct.
You forget option (d) Offer security updates for "older" (a year is older) iOS devices without the new features and tell them to buy a new phone if they want the new features. There is no obligation whatsoever to offer new features on old phones. I am unsure why you would even assume that to be the case. You bought the device with the feature set that it has and the transaction is complete. Deal with it.
In support of my point, you go complain, "You certainly do not have to worry..."
Why would you assume that was a complaint? It was a statement of fact. I buy unlocked international phones exclusively and run custom "ROM" files on them. None of what I was discussing affects me in any way. As a matter of fact, what I was discussing is EXACTLY why I buy what I buy and run what I run.
So you're complaining that Apple is providing updates for old phones, and complaining that Android is not providing updates for old phones.
Again, I am not complaining. I am discussing. Can I not present what I see without it being seen as a complaint or are you accusing me of complaining as a lame effort to derail my argument?
And then you're linking this to a whole capitalism/communism debate that feels out of place.
So you deny that there might be motivations based on Capitalistic ideals to make older model phones less useful? Really? And you reject my rejection of Communistic ideals as a solution? Odd, it seems that the entire premise of the article is that there might actually be Capitalistic motivations for phone manufacturers to make older phones less responsive. Of course, the article then goes on to denigrate such motivations, but it is actually discussed... so how is my discussion of it out of place?
Begone foul coward. I specifically said my first iPhone was not a 1st gen and that my second phone was a 3GS. It was a long time ago and I incorrectly correctly called the 3 the 2 when in fact the 2 was their first model and their second model was the 3. Sue me.
If you were not so busy looking for trolls, perhaps you could have inferred what I meant since I was writing from memory about something quite a while ago. My words still stand.
It seems like there is a simple solution to this sort of problem: don't use advanced warrant-less surveillance technology for matters other than serious national security threats.
BINGO! We have a winner here folks. Chuck, tell our contestant what he has won...
A night in luxurious GITMO near to relaxing beaches and refreshing Caribbean air. Back to you strikethree...
There are 7 billion people on the planet with more popping in all the time. Fuck 'em. Let them be unemployable forever if they got a speeding ticket once. There are plenty of other people who need the job.
The scary part is: Some ministers actually seem to think this way.
Beats (and by extension, apple) is overpriced, overhyped shit. Bose is overpriced, overhyped shit.
I disagree. I have owned both sets of their "high end" noise cancelling headphones. Neither one is shit. Both are definitely over-hyped and overpriced, but they are not shit.
When you claim something is shit, you are claiming that it does not do what it says it will do. Both pairs of headphones reproduce the sounds that were intended in a reliable manner. That is a measure of quality. Both pairs of headphones provide some level of consistent noise cancellation. That is a measure of quality.
The Bose are better than the Beats at noise cancellation. The Beats are better than the Bose at convincing you that you are hearing bass, and slightly better at convincing you that you are hearing treble. Both are 3 times more expensive than a pair of Sennheiser (SP?) headphones that I have that reproduce sounds more like the original sound than the Bose or the Beats. Both pairs (Bose/Beats) sound like... I don't know: Cardboard? The only negative to the Sennheisers is that they do not do noise cancellation and they do not have batteries in them so they eat the battery of my phone. But play a FLAC file through them and OMG, they sound like sex compared to Bose or Beats.
So in other words, what you are saying is that Apple released a new version of iOS and intentionally did not test it against older models because, well, fuck you, that's why.
So explain to me how this is different than intentionally slowing down older models? Yeah...
I had a iPhone 2. It went to shit (not just under optimised) once the 3 came out. I bought a 3GS. It went to shit when the 4 came out (but haha! I only upgraded my friends phones, not my own, so my 3GS was still useful for a few more years).
Once I saw the writing on the wall concerning the upgrade treadmill, I stopped buying Apple products. I had still purchased an iPad 2 and a Macbook Pro 15 inch, but I am done with Apple. I will not be upgrading the iOS on my iPad and I am still on Snow Leopard for my Macbook. I am done. I just do not wish to dedicate so much of my resources just to "stay in the same place". There is nothing any of their newer devices or operating systems offer to me that I want... and certainly nothing worth my money. But then, I would still be on XP64 if I could. Grrrrr.
This is one of the features of a capitalist society that I hate. Every business thinks they need to suck as much revenue out of you as possible regardless of whether or not it even makes sense from your own point of view. That leads to this kind of shit: Perfectly good phones needing be thrown out.
Oh, one other thing, once I tossed out iPhones, I went to Android. You certainly do not have to worry about updates rendering your phones useless in America. The carriers actively block all updates whatsoever because they refuse to update their own "control" software that they built into the original Android software that they shipped in your phone. That means unless you are running Cyanogenmod or some other custom "ROM", you will never see an update... which means that the updates do not actually slow down your phone because their is no economic incentive to do so!
But meh. Capitalism is infinitely better than Communism but the warts really show in these situations. Is there anything better?
Who is Verizon not fucking over? I'm not even their customer and I feel like I need some lube, just from hearing about these things. I would never, ever buy any service from Verizon. Every business they're in, they seem to take pleasure in punishing their customers just for using what they tried to purchase.
Look, Verizon is clearly evil and it seems almost everything they do only compounds their evil factor... but this is not one of those things. This is perfectly reasonable on the surface: Overloaded tower, less intensive customers line up first in the queue. Utterly fair. If I were a Verizon customer, I would be happy with this; especially if I were not on an unlimited plan. Even if I were on an unlimited plan, if I had already downloaded 4GB of data, I would be cool with sharing the limited resources with others.
Of course, knowing Verizon, they will pull cell towers down to ensure that the top 5% are being throttled at all times... but on the surface, this announcement is a good thing.
If Elon was really smart he'd start a church given how much people on slashdot worship him.
I do not worship him. I "like" him though. He became a billionaire and decided to build rockets and electric cars amongst other things. Every other billionaire is boring as hell, just trying to collect more money: Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Walton family, etc etc. What the fuck are they doing? Reveling in luxury and power. What is Elon Musk doing?
Yeah, there is a reason Elon Musk is talked about more than most other billionaires... well, talked about positively anyways. Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer have probably had more words thrown about in here than poor little Elon, but the words used for that dynamic duo are of a much more disparaging nature.
I'm not sure it would make much difference to be speaking German or Russian or Japanese or Chinese or have to profess belief in a different god. If you survived the war, you will still have the same shitty job living hand to mouth... just a different master.
I am an American. Granted, the chains of slavery are heavy, but the quality of the slavery is still different. I have more intellectual freedom in America than I would anywhere else in the world. Even that limited subset of freedom is imperfect but it is better than nothing.
The fight for freedom must continue until no ultimate authority is necessary but that is not a reason to ignore the differing qualities of freedom that are possible. While purity of freedom is desired, impure freedom should not be tossed aside merely because it is impure. It is a step towards purity.
Oddly enough, some of the staunchest defenders of the second amendment claim to do so on the principle that an armed populace can keep a government in check -- and overthrow them by force if need be -- and yet those same people seem some of the least likely candidates to criticize the government for all these bogus measures and information black-outs in the name of "national security".
I am unsure what you are implying here... Are you trying to say that those who demand gun control are the ones most likely to rebel against authority? Seems kind of like an antelope yelling at a leopard. Am I missing something here?
I apologize to everyone here for having voted for them a second time.
No need to apologize. All of this would have happened no matter who you voted for. There might have been a slightly different texture to the chains that are being foisted upon us, but the chains were coming no matter what.
The public face changes but the identity remains unchanged. The US Government is owned and does the bidding of a small group of people... and they are VERY small minded and selfish people with grandiose plans.
I don't have any haloes or night vision problems either.
I read up on laser eye surgery before I had it performed. People kept complaining about halos and such. I had never noticed anything weird about my night vision before so I went outside and looked and guess what, I saw halos... but I had not had the surgery yet. Nothing changed once I did get the surgery. I still have the same effects that I had before the surgery.
I sure am glad that I checked beforehand; otherwise I would be pissed that I am seeing halos now. In reality, it was not the surgery that caused it, I just had never paid attention to them before.
You're trading off future reading vision for distance vision now, and the older you get the closer "now" becomes.
I wish someone had told that to me before I had LASIK done. Even worse, I asked for PRK and discovered they were giving me LASIK when they were cutting my eye. They are not supposed to cut your eye for PRK.
*sigh*
I have terrible reading vision now... which is normal. Before I had the surgery, I could rest a book on my face and see the texture of the paper under the ink. Not anymore.
Ultimately, I have no problems with laser eye surgery but you need an honest doctor and full description of the trade offs beforehand so that you can make a fully informed decision.
The Santa Cruz river thru Tucson has been dry for so long, the local joke is the first day that the temp hits 100F, "breaking news, the ice has melted on the Santa Cruz"
I was there 30 years ago and the "joke" was prevalent then.
Have you met the people in America? Time and again I've met fine GED graduates who have told me that they know for a fact that basic cosmology is wrong and whatever they happen to believe is true
Why do you need to pick on GED holders? I have seen such behavior out of people with degrees from reasonably prestigious colleges.:(
But we aren't talking about those issues right here in this post. We're talking about women right now, so let's stick to the topic.
I was not going to participate in the discussion because most every viewpoint was already covered... but then you had to go and say what I quoted above. *sigh*
She is claiming that men are attacking her. So right there, we have an issue about men. The woman is talking exclusively about men.
Is it surprising that people are talking about men? Especially when her words accuse ALL men?
Personally, I see some of the discussion about women and some of the discussion about men, which makes sense since ultimately, it is a discussion about how women and men interact.
Note how I avoided discussion the merits, or lack thereof, of her entire thesis? There is one thing I would really really like to say though:
There appears to be a group of alpha males and wannabe alpha males (trolls) who attack everything. Female, male, whatever. They try to find the weakest point of that person and tear them down. She seems to be a victim of that and is trying to express it in terms of sexual assault.
It is not surprising that she would do so; after all, she can only speak of things from her experiences. What she does not realize is that it happens to everybody. Being a woman, the attacks are more sexualized in nature but even men get assaulted in that manner. Hell, most of the Slashdot regulars have been assaulted like that. There is a reason for all of the basement jokes. It is safer down there.
Back to the main point, the reason you see so much discussion about mens' issues is that she has made it one by claiming that men in general act that way. It is simply not true and most Slashdot readers are tired of being assaulted by this claim. We do not want women to be assaulted any more than we want ourselves to be assaulted... and yet here we are, the male regulars of Slashdot are being assaulted. Again.
Take your womens' issues and stick them up your ass. This is a dominance issue. It has nothing to do with gender other than most of the alpha type folks are male. Even then, not all alphas play dominance games like that. And to top all of THAT off, the majority of males are not even alphas or wannabe alphas.
No one who wasn't literally insane would try to use smallpox as a weapon
Agree
the infection would inevitably spread back to the country which initiated it
That is a benefit. It can be spun as, "they are counterattacking", etc.
and the idea that we would need samples of our own to retaliate is preposterous.
Agree. We might want samples to create a cure... so samples of our own is still a good idea.
The nightmare scenario is some Hitler-like dude inoculating his followers and letting lose the virus to destroy all of the impure people. As a state sanctioned weapon, biological warfare is virtually useless.
Hold on, as much as Microsoft has ticked me off for 3+ decades, I don't want to see Google with a monopoly either. MS kind of keeps them in check.
WTF dude? Is your name Steve Ballmer or some such? Microsoft and Google are NOT competitors.
Microsoft does operating systems and other software, Google does search and advertising. There is some crossover to be sure, such as Bing and Android... but if Microsoft were to fail, it is NOT Google that will be replacing them. Perhaps Apple, perhaps not. Not Google.
The bottom line is that outlawing drugs reduces their use
Does it? On the surface, it seems that what you say is true. Do you have any data to back that up with?
Personal anecdotes: When I was in school, all the cool kids smoked marijuana despite its illegality. Numerous people were induced to use it despite not showing the desire to use it. Marijuana was most definitely illegal at the time. Legality had no effect on usage that I saw.
When I have visited Amsterdam, there were coffee houses and such that sold marijuana openly. The businesses did not seem overly busy and at most, i saw one or two small groups of people chatting away inside. Definitely not of apocalyptic proportions. Once or twice while wandering around downtown looking at the amazing architecture, I smelled some marijuana smoke but despite my efforts, I never saw who was smoking it. Legality had no effect on usage that I saw.
But do it factually rather than the misinfotainment spouted by both sides. Take pot for instance... the genetic and economic damage is huge.
Ok, let's talk facts. Provide links to reputable studies demonstrating genetic damage over and above genetic damage from background radiation, drinking water, or eating bananas. I did a quick search and the top article was this:
Honestly, it sounds rather hokey. They submitted cells directly to smoke condensates and they did not specify the type and amount of genetic damage. It seems to me that if they had subjected cells directly to any kind of condensed chemical that cell damage of some type is sure to occur. This is not normally how cells are exposed.
Tobacco was also measured this way and found to cause genetic damage. Again, seems rather suspicious to me. No studies not performed in this manner seem to indicate genetic damage.
150x the THC is not the harmless stuff the hippies from the 60's smoked.
I recognize this talking point. It is laughable because hashish has been available for thousands of years (condensed marijuana). Marijuana has been cultivated for thousands of years as a recreational chemical. It does not seem reasonable that all of the strains from the 60s were so weak when it is clear that farmers have known how to create selective strains for thousands of years, e.g. corn and wheat.
The political Right makes it a boogy man
Indeed.
but the political Left pushes "medical marijuana" which is a bigger lie than "Iraq WMD".
Hm. If it is a lie, then why does the federal government grant prescriptions for marijuana use? Sure, at the state level, the requirements are much (MUCH!) less strict, but even at its strictest, the federal government knows there are actual medicinal uses for marijuana.
Both drive from their marketing basis rather than act on fact.
It seems like you need to do some more investigation. Yes, there is a LOT of political spin from both sides. The idea is that YOU research the facts and come to a conclusion yourself. It appears as if you have not actually researched the subject deeply and are making an opinion based on "things you have heard".
Really, try researching it with an open mind. It will not attack you and hurt you.
Please note that I am not arguing for or against, I am merely responding to what you have written.
Thank you. I was considering going with the authoritarian angle: Lazy, crazy, incompetent, but I figured in the current climate, it would not work as an illumination device. Apparently, someone didn't see the illumination from the religious angle either, but I knew that was a risk. I am enjoying the troll moderation though, so it is all okay.:)
Slashdot Mirror
There are two different schools of thought when it comes to solving racial inequity issues. Once school recommends that we strive towards colorblindness in decision making, the other school suggests that we deliberately take color into account but in a more positive way.
When things are deeply out of whack, "positive" ("reverse" discrimination) force is needed. After the initial breakthrough occurs, it is better to use no force and allow things to occur more naturally (colorblindness) so the goal is not missed. The initial breakthrough has already happened. We should be striving for colorblindness.
People complained that Apple was just trying to force people to upgrade.
People will complain that the sun is too yellow. You can not please everyone; although you CAN please the majority of rational people. Denying people security updates (to buggy software) without also accepting "upgrades" that cause massive slowdowns and reduced usefulness is not reasonable or rational.
Because it was obviously phrased as a complaint.
Which exact words of the factual statement made it obvious to a native speaker that it was a complaint.
..you misunderstand the nuances, but it was a sarcastic and bitter complaint..
Whoah! Now I can understand the tone of plain text message easily being misunderstood but this is... way out there. I am suspecting your are putting your own biases into the words that I spoke. Please explain how you get sarcastic bitterness out of my words. The complaint part, I could, in theory, see. The sarcastic and bitter part? Just wow. I even specifically stated that I exclusively use unlocked international versions of phones with custom ROMs now so how could I possibly be bitter about the lameness of American carriers... especially since I am not even using them, I am overseas and have been for a long time.
Well yes, I suppose I am derailing your argument.
You have not addressed a single one of my points, much less refuted them. Permit me to restate them:
Fact: My experience with iPhones prior to the 4 indicate that there was significant slowness introduced with newer versions of iOS without significant new resource intensive features being added.
Proposition: It was intentional. It is irrelevant if it was through "laziness" or maliciousness.
Rebuttal: None. You did not directly address it at ALL except by claiming that I am whining sarcastically and bitterly about my experiences. Definitely not a rebuttal.
Fact: Android phones do not receive updates from American Carriers who control the ROM files on the phones that they sell.
Proposition: This reduces or eliminates any potential desire for Google to try and slow down older phones through update mechanism.
Rebuttal: None. You did not directly address it at ALL except by claiming that I am whining sarcastically and bitterly about my experiences. Again, definitely not a rebuttal.
That's the terminology we're using for when you show that someone's argument is full of shit? "derailing"? Ok, then yeah, that's what I'm doing.
Actually, you are not even close to doing it. Furthermore, derailing an argument means turning it (the argument) into uselessness because you can't stay on on the points. Arguments can be "won" that way, just as they can be won through logical fallacies. That does not mean you are right or correct.
Have a nice day. :)
It's no win
You forget option (d) Offer security updates for "older" (a year is older) iOS devices without the new features and tell them to buy a new phone if they want the new features. There is no obligation whatsoever to offer new features on old phones. I am unsure why you would even assume that to be the case. You bought the device with the feature set that it has and the transaction is complete. Deal with it.
In support of my point, you go complain, "You certainly do not have to worry..."
Why would you assume that was a complaint? It was a statement of fact. I buy unlocked international phones exclusively and run custom "ROM" files on them. None of what I was discussing affects me in any way. As a matter of fact, what I was discussing is EXACTLY why I buy what I buy and run what I run.
So you're complaining that Apple is providing updates for old phones, and complaining that Android is not providing updates for old phones.
Again, I am not complaining. I am discussing. Can I not present what I see without it being seen as a complaint or are you accusing me of complaining as a lame effort to derail my argument?
And then you're linking this to a whole capitalism/communism debate that feels out of place.
So you deny that there might be motivations based on Capitalistic ideals to make older model phones less useful? Really? And you reject my rejection of Communistic ideals as a solution? Odd, it seems that the entire premise of the article is that there might actually be Capitalistic motivations for phone manufacturers to make older phones less responsive. Of course, the article then goes on to denigrate such motivations, but it is actually discussed... so how is my discussion of it out of place?
Begone foul coward. I specifically said my first iPhone was not a 1st gen and that my second phone was a 3GS. It was a long time ago and I incorrectly correctly called the 3 the 2 when in fact the 2 was their first model and their second model was the 3. Sue me.
If you were not so busy looking for trolls, perhaps you could have inferred what I meant since I was writing from memory about something quite a while ago. My words still stand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
It seems like there is a simple solution to this sort of problem: don't use advanced warrant-less surveillance technology for matters other than serious national security threats.
BINGO! We have a winner here folks. Chuck, tell our contestant what he has won...
A night in luxurious GITMO near to relaxing beaches and refreshing Caribbean air. Back to you strikethree...
I got nothing.
Lazy sarcasm:
There are 7 billion people on the planet with more popping in all the time. Fuck 'em. Let them be unemployable forever if they got a speeding ticket once. There are plenty of other people who need the job.
The scary part is: Some ministers actually seem to think this way.
Beats (and by extension, apple) is overpriced, overhyped shit. Bose is overpriced, overhyped shit.
I disagree. I have owned both sets of their "high end" noise cancelling headphones. Neither one is shit. Both are definitely over-hyped and overpriced, but they are not shit.
When you claim something is shit, you are claiming that it does not do what it says it will do. Both pairs of headphones reproduce the sounds that were intended in a reliable manner. That is a measure of quality. Both pairs of headphones provide some level of consistent noise cancellation. That is a measure of quality.
The Bose are better than the Beats at noise cancellation. The Beats are better than the Bose at convincing you that you are hearing bass, and slightly better at convincing you that you are hearing treble. Both are 3 times more expensive than a pair of Sennheiser (SP?) headphones that I have that reproduce sounds more like the original sound than the Bose or the Beats. Both pairs (Bose/Beats) sound like... I don't know: Cardboard? The only negative to the Sennheisers is that they do not do noise cancellation and they do not have batteries in them so they eat the battery of my phone. But play a FLAC file through them and OMG, they sound like sex compared to Bose or Beats.
So in other words, what you are saying is that Apple released a new version of iOS and intentionally did not test it against older models because, well, fuck you, that's why.
So explain to me how this is different than intentionally slowing down older models? Yeah...
I had a iPhone 2. It went to shit (not just under optimised) once the 3 came out. I bought a 3GS. It went to shit when the 4 came out (but haha! I only upgraded my friends phones, not my own, so my 3GS was still useful for a few more years).
Once I saw the writing on the wall concerning the upgrade treadmill, I stopped buying Apple products. I had still purchased an iPad 2 and a Macbook Pro 15 inch, but I am done with Apple. I will not be upgrading the iOS on my iPad and I am still on Snow Leopard for my Macbook. I am done. I just do not wish to dedicate so much of my resources just to "stay in the same place". There is nothing any of their newer devices or operating systems offer to me that I want... and certainly nothing worth my money. But then, I would still be on XP64 if I could. Grrrrr.
This is one of the features of a capitalist society that I hate. Every business thinks they need to suck as much revenue out of you as possible regardless of whether or not it even makes sense from your own point of view. That leads to this kind of shit: Perfectly good phones needing be thrown out.
Oh, one other thing, once I tossed out iPhones, I went to Android. You certainly do not have to worry about updates rendering your phones useless in America. The carriers actively block all updates whatsoever because they refuse to update their own "control" software that they built into the original Android software that they shipped in your phone. That means unless you are running Cyanogenmod or some other custom "ROM", you will never see an update... which means that the updates do not actually slow down your phone because their is no economic incentive to do so!
But meh. Capitalism is infinitely better than Communism but the warts really show in these situations. Is there anything better?
Who is Verizon not fucking over? I'm not even their customer and I feel like I need some lube, just from hearing about these things. I would never, ever buy any service from Verizon. Every business they're in, they seem to take pleasure in punishing their customers just for using what they tried to purchase.
Look, Verizon is clearly evil and it seems almost everything they do only compounds their evil factor... but this is not one of those things. This is perfectly reasonable on the surface: Overloaded tower, less intensive customers line up first in the queue. Utterly fair. If I were a Verizon customer, I would be happy with this; especially if I were not on an unlimited plan. Even if I were on an unlimited plan, if I had already downloaded 4GB of data, I would be cool with sharing the limited resources with others.
Of course, knowing Verizon, they will pull cell towers down to ensure that the top 5% are being throttled at all times... but on the surface, this announcement is a good thing.
Mortal Combat announcer: Brutality
Wish I had mod points for you right now. Well said.
If Elon was really smart he'd start a church given how much people on slashdot worship him.
I do not worship him. I "like" him though. He became a billionaire and decided to build rockets and electric cars amongst other things. Every other billionaire is boring as hell, just trying to collect more money: Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Walton family, etc etc. What the fuck are they doing? Reveling in luxury and power. What is Elon Musk doing?
Yeah, there is a reason Elon Musk is talked about more than most other billionaires... well, talked about positively anyways. Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer have probably had more words thrown about in here than poor little Elon, but the words used for that dynamic duo are of a much more disparaging nature.
I wouldn't... but those benefits sure are tempting! :)
I'm not sure it would make much difference to be speaking German or Russian or Japanese or Chinese or have to profess belief in a different god. If you survived the war, you will still have the same shitty job living hand to mouth... just a different master.
I am an American. Granted, the chains of slavery are heavy, but the quality of the slavery is still different. I have more intellectual freedom in America than I would anywhere else in the world. Even that limited subset of freedom is imperfect but it is better than nothing.
The fight for freedom must continue until no ultimate authority is necessary but that is not a reason to ignore the differing qualities of freedom that are possible. While purity of freedom is desired, impure freedom should not be tossed aside merely because it is impure. It is a step towards purity.
Oddly enough, some of the staunchest defenders of the second amendment claim to do so on the principle that an armed populace can keep a government in check -- and overthrow them by force if need be -- and yet those same people seem some of the least likely candidates to criticize the government for all these bogus measures and information black-outs in the name of "national security".
I am unsure what you are implying here... Are you trying to say that those who demand gun control are the ones most likely to rebel against authority? Seems kind of like an antelope yelling at a leopard. Am I missing something here?
I apologize to everyone here for having voted for them a second time.
No need to apologize. All of this would have happened no matter who you voted for. There might have been a slightly different texture to the chains that are being foisted upon us, but the chains were coming no matter what.
The public face changes but the identity remains unchanged. The US Government is owned and does the bidding of a small group of people... and they are VERY small minded and selfish people with grandiose plans.
I don't have any haloes or night vision problems either.
I read up on laser eye surgery before I had it performed. People kept complaining about halos and such. I had never noticed anything weird about my night vision before so I went outside and looked and guess what, I saw halos... but I had not had the surgery yet. Nothing changed once I did get the surgery. I still have the same effects that I had before the surgery.
I sure am glad that I checked beforehand; otherwise I would be pissed that I am seeing halos now. In reality, it was not the surgery that caused it, I just had never paid attention to them before.
You're trading off future reading vision for distance vision now, and the older you get the closer "now" becomes.
I wish someone had told that to me before I had LASIK done. Even worse, I asked for PRK and discovered they were giving me LASIK when they were cutting my eye. They are not supposed to cut your eye for PRK.
*sigh*
I have terrible reading vision now... which is normal. Before I had the surgery, I could rest a book on my face and see the texture of the paper under the ink. Not anymore.
Ultimately, I have no problems with laser eye surgery but you need an honest doctor and full description of the trade offs beforehand so that you can make a fully informed decision.
The Santa Cruz river thru Tucson has been dry for so long, the local joke is the first day that the temp hits 100F, "breaking news, the ice has melted on the Santa Cruz"
I was there 30 years ago and the "joke" was prevalent then.
Have you met the people in America? Time and again I've met fine GED graduates who have told me that they know for a fact that basic cosmology is wrong and whatever they happen to believe is true
Why do you need to pick on GED holders? I have seen such behavior out of people with degrees from reasonably prestigious colleges. :(
But we aren't talking about those issues right here in this post. We're talking about women right now, so let's stick to the topic.
I was not going to participate in the discussion because most every viewpoint was already covered... but then you had to go and say what I quoted above. *sigh*
She is claiming that men are attacking her. So right there, we have an issue about men. The woman is talking exclusively about men.
Is it surprising that people are talking about men? Especially when her words accuse ALL men?
Personally, I see some of the discussion about women and some of the discussion about men, which makes sense since ultimately, it is a discussion about how women and men interact.
Note how I avoided discussion the merits, or lack thereof, of her entire thesis? There is one thing I would really really like to say though:
There appears to be a group of alpha males and wannabe alpha males (trolls) who attack everything. Female, male, whatever. They try to find the weakest point of that person and tear them down. She seems to be a victim of that and is trying to express it in terms of sexual assault.
It is not surprising that she would do so; after all, she can only speak of things from her experiences. What she does not realize is that it happens to everybody. Being a woman, the attacks are more sexualized in nature but even men get assaulted in that manner. Hell, most of the Slashdot regulars have been assaulted like that. There is a reason for all of the basement jokes. It is safer down there.
Back to the main point, the reason you see so much discussion about mens' issues is that she has made it one by claiming that men in general act that way. It is simply not true and most Slashdot readers are tired of being assaulted by this claim. We do not want women to be assaulted any more than we want ourselves to be assaulted... and yet here we are, the male regulars of Slashdot are being assaulted. Again.
Take your womens' issues and stick them up your ass. This is a dominance issue. It has nothing to do with gender other than most of the alpha type folks are male. Even then, not all alphas play dominance games like that. And to top all of THAT off, the majority of males are not even alphas or wannabe alphas.
No one who wasn't literally insane would try to use smallpox as a weapon
Agree
the infection would inevitably spread back to the country which initiated it
That is a benefit. It can be spun as, "they are counterattacking", etc.
and the idea that we would need samples of our own to retaliate is preposterous.
Agree. We might want samples to create a cure... so samples of our own is still a good idea.
The nightmare scenario is some Hitler-like dude inoculating his followers and letting lose the virus to destroy all of the impure people. As a state sanctioned weapon, biological warfare is virtually useless.
Hold on, as much as Microsoft has ticked me off for 3+ decades, I don't want to see Google with a monopoly either. MS kind of keeps them in check.
WTF dude? Is your name Steve Ballmer or some such? Microsoft and Google are NOT competitors.
Microsoft does operating systems and other software, Google does search and advertising. There is some crossover to be sure, such as Bing and Android... but if Microsoft were to fail, it is NOT Google that will be replacing them. Perhaps Apple, perhaps not. Not Google.
That may seem strange to us in Europe or the USA where miltary and civilian operations are conducted from separate facilities
It should not be strange to Americans either. Peterson Air Force base uses the other end of the Colorado Springs Airport.
https://www.google.com/maps/@3...
And there are others, this one was merely convenient for me to point out.
The bottom line is that outlawing drugs reduces their use
Does it? On the surface, it seems that what you say is true. Do you have any data to back that up with?
Personal anecdotes:
When I was in school, all the cool kids smoked marijuana despite its illegality. Numerous people were induced to use it despite not showing the desire to use it. Marijuana was most definitely illegal at the time. Legality had no effect on usage that I saw.
When I have visited Amsterdam, there were coffee houses and such that sold marijuana openly. The businesses did not seem overly busy and at most, i saw one or two small groups of people chatting away inside. Definitely not of apocalyptic proportions. Once or twice while wandering around downtown looking at the amazing architecture, I smelled some marijuana smoke but despite my efforts, I never saw who was smoking it. Legality had no effect on usage that I saw.
But do it factually rather than the misinfotainment spouted by both sides. Take pot for instance... the genetic and economic damage is huge.
Ok, let's talk facts. Provide links to reputable studies demonstrating genetic damage over and above genetic damage from background radiation, drinking water, or eating bananas. I did a quick search and the top article was this:
http://cosmosmagazine.com/news...
Honestly, it sounds rather hokey. They submitted cells directly to smoke condensates and they did not specify the type and amount of genetic damage. It seems to me that if they had subjected cells directly to any kind of condensed chemical that cell damage of some type is sure to occur. This is not normally how cells are exposed.
Tobacco was also measured this way and found to cause genetic damage. Again, seems rather suspicious to me. No studies not performed in this manner seem to indicate genetic damage.
150x the THC is not the harmless stuff the hippies from the 60's smoked.
I recognize this talking point. It is laughable because hashish has been available for thousands of years (condensed marijuana). Marijuana has been cultivated for thousands of years as a recreational chemical. It does not seem reasonable that all of the strains from the 60s were so weak when it is clear that farmers have known how to create selective strains for thousands of years, e.g. corn and wheat.
The political Right makes it a boogy man
Indeed.
but the political Left pushes "medical marijuana" which is a bigger lie than "Iraq WMD".
Hm. If it is a lie, then why does the federal government grant prescriptions for marijuana use? Sure, at the state level, the requirements are much (MUCH!) less strict, but even at its strictest, the federal government knows there are actual medicinal uses for marijuana.
Both drive from their marketing basis rather than act on fact.
It seems like you need to do some more investigation. Yes, there is a LOT of political spin from both sides. The idea is that YOU research the facts and come to a conclusion yourself. It appears as if you have not actually researched the subject deeply and are making an opinion based on "things you have heard".
Really, try researching it with an open mind. It will not attack you and hurt you.
Please note that I am not arguing for or against, I am merely responding to what you have written.
Kind regards
Thank you. I was considering going with the authoritarian angle: Lazy, crazy, incompetent, but I figured in the current climate, it would not work as an illumination device. Apparently, someone didn't see the illumination from the religious angle either, but I knew that was a risk. I am enjoying the troll moderation though, so it is all okay. :)