Now that I'd perfected the crust, the final issue to deal with was that of the interior. One last question remained: how to maximize the flavor of the interior. In order to stay fluffy and not gummy, a lot of the interior moisture needs to be expelled in the cooking process, so my goal should be to make this evaporation as easy as possible. I figure that so far, by cooking it all the way to boiling point, I'm doing pretty much the right thing--the more cooked the potatoes are, the more the cell structure breaks down, and the easier it is for water to be expelled. To confirm this, I cooked three batches of potatoes, starting each in a pot of cold, vinegared water, and bringing them up to various final temperature (170 degree F, 185 degree F, and 212 degree F) before draining and double-frying them. Not surprisingly, the boiled potatoes had the best internal structure. Luckily, they were the easiest to make as well.
But was there anything more I could do? I thought back to those McDonald's fries and realized a vital step that I had neglected to test: freezing. Every batch of McDonald's fries is frozen before being shipped out to the stores. I always figured this step was for purely economic reasons, but perhaps there was more to it?
I tried freezing half a batch of fries before frying them and tasted them side-by-side against the other half.
The improvement was undeniable. The frozen fries had a distinctly fluffier interior, while the unfrozen ones were still ever-so-slightly gummy. It makes perfect sense. Freezing the potatoes causes their moisture to convert to ice, forming sharp, jagged crystals. These crystals damage the cell structure of the potato, making it easier for them to be released once they are heated and convert to steam. The best part? Because freezing actually improves them, I can do the initial blanching and frying steps in large batches, freeze them, and have a constant supply of ready-to-fry potatoes right in my freezer just like Ronald himself!
Rogue states like Cuba and North Korea don't necessarily need to develop this sort of thing for themselves - they could just let in Russian or Chinese intelligence agents who'd have something they'd need to test.
It's like the reverse case of the Cold War where a lot of US allies - naming no names but the CPU in your cellphone or laptop was either invented, designed or manufactured in one - allowed US intelligence personnel in to test some clever intelligence gathering ideas on the USSR, PRC or their allies in return for access to the information they gathered.
This being intelligence stuff it's all a bit legally dubious even in the West. God knows what happens in places where the intelligence agencies can openly ignore the law like China, Russia, Cuba or North Korea.
For example Peter Wright described a plan to convert a bust of Lenin into an ultrasound reflector - the idea being the reflected ultrasound would be modulated with an audio signal, the audio signal being the sound around it -
As to what else went on inside the embassy, perhaps MI5 picked it up by electronic means, perhaps not. Peter Wright describes a delicious plan devised by MI5 in the 1950s, using new technology to modify an ordinary object so that it would reflect sound waves; carrying no transmitter or receiver itself, the object was virtually undetectable. Why not modify some valuable object along these lines and give it to the Soviet ambassador? Wright consulted someone who knew the ways of the Soviet diplomatic community and had also been with MI5: Klop Ustinov, father of the actor. Ustinov suggested a bust of Lenin or a model of the Kremlin, something so sacred that the Soviets wouldn't be tempted to sell it. Lenin was vetoed ("the smooth contours of Vladimir Ilyich's skull were too rounded to be sure of reflecting sound waves," Wright tells us) and ultimately the FO abandoned the project, for reasons we do not learn.
I.e. the idea of using a microwave or ultrasound reflector as a remote microphone has been around for some time.
It'd be interesting if it ever got to the point where not having a blue check mark was seen as a sign that you were saying stuff that was edgy enough to potentially be interesting.
Hate speech is very much subjective though - people who want hate speech against Muslims banned seem pretty quick to express hate against other groups - whites, men, conservatives, Christians and so on.
What they want is to censor hate by their political opponents but not hate by people they see as allies. It's an example of Salami Tactics
The term salami tactics (Hungarian: szalámitaktika) was coined in the late 1940s by the orthodox communist leader Mátyás Rákosi to describe the actions of the Hungarian Communist Party. Rákosi claimed he destroyed the non-Communist parties by "cutting them off like slices of salami." By portraying his opponents as fascists (or at the very least fascist sympathizers), he was able to get the opposition to slice off its right wing, then its centrists, then the more courageous left wingers, until only those fellow travelers willing to collaborate with the Communists remained in power.
I.e. it's only ever applied to the right and the left keeps adding new examples of hate speech that need to be purged. And those examples are things that occur more on the right than the left. E.g. the current purge of people like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro who dissent from modern dogma on transsexuals under the newly invented category of transphobia, or Sam Harris for islamophobia.
Of course sometimes people like Farrakhan are guilty of hate not only against approved groups like whites but unapproved ones like Jews. And then that is simply ignored.
I.e. the whole notion is wholly disingenuous and arbitrary. It only really makes sense if you buy into the left wing ideology of intersectionality. In intersectionality sexism/racism are defined as 'power plus prejudice'. So they're only bad when they are directed from a 'privileged' group to an 'unprivileged' one. Which is why Farrakhan gets a pass for hating whites. No one bothers to explain why he gets a pass for hating Jews. Same with Linda Sarsour. Both of them are welcome on the left despite hate that is still hate under the 'power plus prejudice' definition which is obviously defined to include most hateful right wing statements and exclude most hateful left wing ones.
I was going to wait till the summer to install it, but I succumbed and installed it last week. It takes a little getting used to, old habits are hard to reform, and it's not quite finished (what software ever is), and much of the software that's out to run on it is Beta.
But...
I think it's brilliant. I've fallen completely in love with it. And the promise of what's to come once people start developing in Cocoa is awesome...
Star Wars Star Wars: The Force Awakens Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace Return of the Jedi The Empire Strikes Back Star Wars: The Last Jedi Rogue One: A Star Wars Story Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones
So the first film made a tonne of cash, then you see the first films of the reboot and first film of the prequels, then the sequels to the original, then the sequels to the reboot, then the sequels to the prequels.
What's probably happening here is that if you reboot something people remember from their childhood they'll go along to see if its any good. Once they realise it isn't they'll just wait for the next reboot.
Solo : A Star Wars story will be fairly fair down in that list I predict, somewhere beneath Rogue One and Attack of the Clones. Same with Episode 9.
Of course all these films are still profitable which means they'll keep making more of them. However it looks like a clear case of diminishing returns. Mind you a reboot would help - look at how Star Wars: The Force Awakens did much better than the last two prequels.
Why doesn't Explorer show recursive directory size as an optional column?
"Why start up another program to see folder sizes, when they should just be right there, in Explorer, all the time?"
The same reason \\ does not autocomplete to all the computers on the network: Because it would destroy corporate networks.
Showing folder sizes "all the time" means that when you open, say, the root of a large server, Explorer would start running around recursively enumerating every single directory on the server in order to compute the folder sizes. One person doing this to a server is bad enough. Imagine if hundreds of people did it simultaneously: The server would be hammered continously.
Even worse: imagine doing this across a limited-bandwidth link like a VPN or an overseas link. The link would be saturated with file enumerations and wouldn't have any bandwidth remaining for "real work". Even the change-notifications that Explorer registers are cause for much hair-pulling on corporate networks. (And these are change-notifications, which are passive.)
Even on a home computer, computing folder sizes automatically is is still not a good idea. How would you like it if opening a folder caused Explorer to start churning your disk computing all the folder sizes recursively? (Then again, maybe you don't mind, in which case, go nuts.)
(Of course, the question sidesteps the question the linked article tries to address, namely, "What do you mean by the size of a directory anyway?")
BT in the UK have a per device preprogrammed serial number for admin access to routers - they have a sticker on the underside of the device with the admin password and the Wifi password.
It's actually not a bad scheme at all - it means most people who don't care about this stuff will end up with a secure admin/wifi password and if someone cracked the scheme people who do care would still be able to change it.
And it's better than the usual router scheme of setting the password to something dumb like 'admin'. Most people won't change it which means they're vulnerable.
NB - Nothing in this comment should be taken to imply that BT are not an awful company to deal with most of the time, I just think the password scheme they use on routers is actually pretty sensible.
Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman said "We economists don't know much, but we do know how to create a shortage. If you want to create a shortage of tomatoes, for example, just pass a law that retailers can't sell tomatoes for more than two cents per pound. Instantly you'll have a tomato shortage. It's the same with oil or gas."
Why is this a bad thing? It is called capitalism. Should we build a moat around NYC and keep out all of the people willing to pay more for housing in order to protect cheap rents for people already inside the moat?
The ironic thing is that people who want keep rich people out of NYC to keep rents low also tend to be in favour of open borders migration.
Dude! These people look at video games all day! They'll be violent as fuck! The secret service will probably have to mow them down with the Presidential Gatling Gun to keep them off the POTUS!
None of Google, Microsoft or Apple can be trusted. Nor any of the Android or Windows OEMs.
When it comes to buying a phone or a laptop you're deciding who is least untrustworthy, not who is trustworthy.
So I've got a couple of PCs, a Macbook and some Android and iOS devices to develop/test on.
That doesn't mean I'm a fan of any of these companies. At least with Android and Windows you can punish a hardware vendor by switching to a competitor. With Apple you pretty much need to junk their entire ecosystem. Then again with the world arguably moving towards progressive web apps rather than native ones it may well be that you'll be able to build apps without needing a Mac -
Though I reckon I'll still be buying Apple, Android and Windows devices in five years time just because being able to target Android, Apple and Windows natively as platform is still pretty useful.
But if I didn't need to target Apple platforms, I wouldn't buy Apple stuff. I'd just get a cheap Windows laptop and a cheap Android device when I needed to replace the old ones. That would be significantly cheaper than owning an Apple device that was still supported.
If you don't need to build apps for Apple devices, don't buy any Apple devices because they're a rip off and they're getting worse.
As you can see the ECHR is a catastrophe. It definitely doesn't protect the rights it should - e.g the right to free speech is so hedged with caveats it is essentially worthless. In addition to the cases in the document above governments are allowed to restrict free speech to
* interests of national security * territorial integrity or public safety * prevention of disorder or crime * protection of health or morals * protection of the reputation or the rights of others * preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence * maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary
Meanwhile it interprets Article 8 'the right to family life' in a way which blocks deportation
So the government can't deport foreign criminals but it can imprison people who complain about foreign criminals for hate speech. I.e. the ECHR is non too subtly rigged in favour of the rights of migrants and against those of natives.
And you need to be a signatory to the ECHR to be in the EU
On the face of it, Brexit has no implications whatever for the UK's relationship with the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), or for either of these institutions themselves. Formally, by leaving the EU, the UK would merely join the existing 19 non-EU states which belong to the 47-member Council of Europe, the parent body of the ECHR and the ECtHR. However, many Brexiteers are also hostile to the ECtHR, others fail to realise that departing the EU will leave the UK's ECHR commitments intact, and hostility towards the Strasbourg institutions is not limited to those who want to leave the EU. For example, as Home Secretary before the referendum vote, Teresa May, a Remainer, advocated UK withdrawal from the ECHR (call it 'ECxit'), in spite of the fact that belonging to the Council of Europe is effectively a condition of EU membership. However, she later announced that she had changed her mind because ECxit lacked sufficient Parliamentary support.
So May's idea of leaving the ECHR wasn't possible inside the EU. However it's probably possible outside it. And realistically it needs to be done - a British court ruling on British law is less likely to decide that foreign criminals can't be deported than a foreign court which doesn't really care about the costs to British people such a decision would impose.
Any court needs to weigh up two distinct sets of interests in a case like that - the interest of criminals to not be sent somewhere worse (dare I say 'a shithole country') and the interest of British citizens to not have criminals in their country. The ECHR can slap the UK government over the knuckles and feel good about itself without worrying too much of the costs such a decision impose. A British court might well not see things that way - and in fact the most unpopular decisions were when the ECHR overruled British courts.
In US terms imagine the following hypothetical. If NAFTA were like the EU - a wannabe state with citizens and courts - and a NAFTA court in Canada decided to overrule the US SCOTUS and block US deportation of a non US/non NAFTA citizen on the grounds it would impede their 'right to family life'.
Of course no US administration would agree to anything like this.
You could save even more power if you made your TV look like a scrying mirror
Actually on an OLED you could take advantage of the excellent contrast ratio and zero power for black pixels to have demonic faces appear very faintly on the TV is scrying mirror mode. Not all the time, perhaps just late at night when people come in and turn off the lights, just before they leave the room. A sort of 'you can see it out of the corner of your eye' thing.
I think most people could live with the restriction that you can't incite imminent lawless action . However that's not what is happening. If you post "Kill all whites/men!" on social media nothing will happen to you. However if you complain about immigrants raping the natives like Storch and Weidel did you'll get silenced.
And the authorities don't seem at all concerned when AntiFa incite mobs online to attack people complaining about immigration. AntiFa act like the brownshirts of the establishment to silence views the establishment doesn't like.
And frankly if you trust an establishment with the power of censorship to only suppress speech which incites imminent lawless action you're a fool - they'll inevitably abuse that power to suppress criticism of their policies.
Even if they could only a small minority of people will use Tor. That's the lesson of China unfortunately - you don't need to block unapproved opinions completely. You just need to make them hard to get to and at the same time run a campaign in the media you control to say foreign sites are spreading porn and degeneracy and that visiting them is unpatriotic.
The western version of this is when the mainstream sites started to call gab.ai, voat and minds.com 'Alt Right', 'fake news' and/or 'Russian propaganda'
Also of course Google/Apple pulled the gab app from their app stores. At that point you could still get an apk file and install it at least on Android, but not many people did. So gab.ai weren't able to have much effect on the narrative that the mainstream sites were pushing.
I.e. censorship doesn't need to be completely bulletproof to have an effect - you just need to make it hard to see alternative sites and easy to see the non alternative ones. And then have the non alternative ones libel the shit out of the alternatives. And then you've got control of the narrative.
At that point most people will decide to stick with the non alternative sites. This will work so long as the non alternative sites will all collude in the libelling either because they're forced by government fiat (China) or because they're ideological echo chambers that have already purged dissenters internally (the US) and can thus act in a unified way against the alternative sites the dissenters have fled to.
Funny thing is when China started to try it all the tech giant CEOs said it wouldn't work. Now they see it does they're doing it themselves, and no doubt patting themselves on the back for stopping Alt Right Russian fake news trolls.
Slashdot Mirror
Next time get the $1000 model with the notch. I hear it lets you type Applepostrophes® without them coming out all fubar.
Mac fans show their people skills once again.
https://aht.seriouseats.com/20...
Getting Inside the Fluffy Interior
Now that I'd perfected the crust, the final issue to deal with was that of the interior. One last question remained: how to maximize the flavor of the interior. In order to stay fluffy and not gummy, a lot of the interior moisture needs to be expelled in the cooking process, so my goal should be to make this evaporation as easy as possible. I figure that so far, by cooking it all the way to boiling point, I'm doing pretty much the right thing--the more cooked the potatoes are, the more the cell structure breaks down, and the easier it is for water to be expelled. To confirm this, I cooked three batches of potatoes, starting each in a pot of cold, vinegared water, and bringing them up to various final temperature (170 degree F, 185 degree F, and 212 degree F) before draining and double-frying them. Not surprisingly, the boiled potatoes had the best internal structure. Luckily, they were the easiest to make as well.
But was there anything more I could do? I thought back to those McDonald's fries and realized a vital step that I had neglected to test: freezing. Every batch of McDonald's fries is frozen before being shipped out to the stores. I always figured this step was for purely economic reasons, but perhaps there was more to it?
I tried freezing half a batch of fries before frying them and tasted them side-by-side against the other half.
The improvement was undeniable. The frozen fries had a distinctly fluffier interior, while the unfrozen ones were still ever-so-slightly gummy. It makes perfect sense. Freezing the potatoes causes their moisture to convert to ice, forming sharp, jagged crystals. These crystals damage the cell structure of the potato, making it easier for them to be released once they are heated and convert to steam. The best part? Because freezing actually improves them, I can do the initial blanching and frying steps in large batches, freeze them, and have a constant supply of ready-to-fry potatoes right in my freezer just like Ronald himself!
Richard Spencer is controlled opposition.
Yeah the radio series came first, then the books, then the TV series, then the movie.
The radio series is remarkable.
Rogue states like Cuba and North Korea don't necessarily need to develop this sort of thing for themselves - they could just let in Russian or Chinese intelligence agents who'd have something they'd need to test.
It's like the reverse case of the Cold War where a lot of US allies - naming no names but the CPU in your cellphone or laptop was either invented, designed or manufactured in one - allowed US intelligence personnel in to test some clever intelligence gathering ideas on the USSR, PRC or their allies in return for access to the information they gathered.
This being intelligence stuff it's all a bit legally dubious even in the West. God knows what happens in places where the intelligence agencies can openly ignore the law like China, Russia, Cuba or North Korea.
For example Peter Wright described a plan to convert a bust of Lenin into an ultrasound reflector - the idea being the reflected ultrasound would be modulated with an audio signal, the audio signal being the sound around it -
https://spyinggame.me/2012/07/...
As to what else went on inside the embassy, perhaps MI5 picked it up by electronic means, perhaps not. Peter Wright describes a delicious plan devised by MI5 in the 1950s, using new technology to modify an ordinary object so that it would reflect sound waves; carrying no transmitter or receiver itself, the object was virtually undetectable. Why not modify some valuable object along these lines and give it to the Soviet ambassador? Wright consulted someone who knew the ways of the Soviet diplomatic community and had also been with MI5: Klop Ustinov, father of the actor. Ustinov suggested a bust of Lenin or a model of the Kremlin, something so sacred that the Soviets wouldn't be tempted to sell it. Lenin was vetoed ("the smooth contours of Vladimir Ilyich's skull were too rounded to be sure of reflecting sound waves," Wright tells us) and ultimately the FO abandoned the project, for reasons we do not learn.
I.e. the idea of using a microwave or ultrasound reflector as a remote microphone has been around for some time.
It'd be interesting if it ever got to the point where not having a blue check mark was seen as a sign that you were saying stuff that was edgy enough to potentially be interesting.
Hate speech is very much subjective though - people who want hate speech against Muslims banned seem pretty quick to express hate against other groups - whites, men, conservatives, Christians and so on.
What they want is to censor hate by their political opponents but not hate by people they see as allies. It's an example of Salami Tactics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The term salami tactics (Hungarian: szalámitaktika) was coined in the late 1940s by the orthodox communist leader Mátyás Rákosi to describe the actions of the Hungarian Communist Party. Rákosi claimed he destroyed the non-Communist parties by "cutting them off like slices of salami." By portraying his opponents as fascists (or at the very least fascist sympathizers), he was able to get the opposition to slice off its right wing, then its centrists, then the more courageous left wingers, until only those fellow travelers willing to collaborate with the Communists remained in power.
I.e. it's only ever applied to the right and the left keeps adding new examples of hate speech that need to be purged. And those examples are things that occur more on the right than the left. E.g. the current purge of people like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro who dissent from modern dogma on transsexuals under the newly invented category of transphobia, or Sam Harris for islamophobia.
Of course sometimes people like Farrakhan are guilty of hate not only against approved groups like whites but unapproved ones like Jews. And then that is simply ignored.
I.e. the whole notion is wholly disingenuous and arbitrary. It only really makes sense if you buy into the left wing ideology of intersectionality. In intersectionality sexism/racism are defined as 'power plus prejudice'. So they're only bad when they are directed from a 'privileged' group to an 'unprivileged' one. Which is why Farrakhan gets a pass for hating whites. No one bothers to explain why he gets a pass for hating Jews. Same with Linda Sarsour. Both of them are welcome on the left despite hate that is still hate under the 'power plus prejudice' definition which is obviously defined to include most hateful right wing statements and exclude most hateful left wing ones.
There's more anger in your critique of Eoin Colfer than there is is Luther's critique of Catholicism or the Sunni critique of the Shia.
I like the Radio 4 adaption of THGTTG, not so much the HERETICAL TV series or movies, but come on now.
https://www.engadget.com/2014/...
I was going to wait till the summer to install it, but I succumbed and installed it last week. It takes a little getting used to, old habits are hard to reform, and it's not quite finished (what software ever is), and much of the software that's out to run on it is Beta.
But...
I think it's brilliant. I've fallen completely in love with it. And the promise of what's to come once people start developing in Cocoa is awesome...
A few weeks later he was dead.
If you look at the inflation adjusted grosses here
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/f...
You see
Star Wars
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace
Return of the Jedi
The Empire Strikes Back
Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones
So the first film made a tonne of cash, then you see the first films of the reboot and first film of the prequels, then the sequels to the original, then the sequels to the reboot, then the sequels to the prequels.
What's probably happening here is that if you reboot something people remember from their childhood they'll go along to see if its any good. Once they realise it isn't they'll just wait for the next reboot.
Solo : A Star Wars story will be fairly fair down in that list I predict, somewhere beneath Rogue One and Attack of the Clones. Same with Episode 9.
Of course all these films are still profitable which means they'll keep making more of them. However it looks like a clear case of diminishing returns. Mind you a reboot would help - look at how Star Wars: The Force Awakens did much better than the last two prequels.
The Sith were just trying to fight against the globalist cucks and Make Coruscant Great Again.
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.c...
Why doesn't Explorer show recursive directory size as an optional column?
"Why start up another program to see folder sizes, when they should just be right there, in Explorer, all the time?"
The same reason \\ does not autocomplete to all the computers on the network: Because it would destroy corporate networks.
Showing folder sizes "all the time" means that when you open, say, the root of a large server, Explorer would start running around recursively enumerating every single directory on the server in order to compute the folder sizes. One person doing this to a server is bad enough. Imagine if hundreds of people did it simultaneously: The server would be hammered continously.
Even worse: imagine doing this across a limited-bandwidth link like a VPN or an overseas link. The link would be saturated with file enumerations and wouldn't have any bandwidth remaining for "real work". Even the change-notifications that Explorer registers are cause for much hair-pulling on corporate networks. (And these are change-notifications, which are passive.)
Even on a home computer, computing folder sizes automatically is is still not a good idea. How would you like it if opening a folder caused Explorer to start churning your disk computing all the folder sizes recursively? (Then again, maybe you don't mind, in which case, go nuts.)
(Of course, the question sidesteps the question the linked article tries to address, namely, "What do you mean by the size of a directory anyway?")
"And then Daryyn Charva battered him in the Wetherspoons carpark"
Traditional, often attributed to Shakespeare on the Internet.
BT in the UK have a per device preprogrammed serial number for admin access to routers - they have a sticker on the underside of the device with the admin password and the Wifi password.
http://bt.custhelp.com/app/ans...
You can still change both though.
It's actually not a bad scheme at all - it means most people who don't care about this stuff will end up with a secure admin/wifi password and if someone cracked the scheme people who do care would still be able to change it.
And it's better than the usual router scheme of setting the password to something dumb like 'admin'. Most people won't change it which means they're vulnerable.
NB - Nothing in this comment should be taken to imply that BT are not an awful company to deal with most of the time, I just think the password scheme they use on routers is actually pretty sensible.
Milton Friedman on price controls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman said "We economists don't know much, but we do know how to create a shortage. If you want to create a shortage of tomatoes, for example, just pass a law that retailers can't sell tomatoes for more than two cents per pound. Instantly you'll have a tomato shortage. It's the same with oil or gas."
Why is this a bad thing? It is called capitalism. Should we build a moat around NYC and keep out all of the people willing to pay more for housing in order to protect cheap rents for people already inside the moat?
The ironic thing is that people who want keep rich people out of NYC to keep rents low also tend to be in favour of open borders migration.
Dude! These people look at video games all day! They'll be violent as fuck! The secret service will probably have to mow them down with the Presidential Gatling Gun to keep them off the POTUS!
CIA/NSA have agents in all major vendor planting bugs in hardware and software.
Nothing from the USA can be trusted
As opposed to China I suppose?
None of Google, Microsoft or Apple can be trusted. Nor any of the Android or Windows OEMs.
When it comes to buying a phone or a laptop you're deciding who is least untrustworthy, not who is trustworthy.
So I've got a couple of PCs, a Macbook and some Android and iOS devices to develop/test on.
That doesn't mean I'm a fan of any of these companies. At least with Android and Windows you can punish a hardware vendor by switching to a competitor. With Apple you pretty much need to junk their entire ecosystem. Then again with the world arguably moving towards progressive web apps rather than native ones it may well be that you'll be able to build apps without needing a Mac -
https://medium.com/@firt/pwas-...
Though I reckon I'll still be buying Apple, Android and Windows devices in five years time just because being able to target Android, Apple and Windows natively as platform is still pretty useful.
But if I didn't need to target Apple platforms, I wouldn't buy Apple stuff. I'd just get a cheap Windows laptop and a cheap Android device when I needed to replace the old ones. That would be significantly cheaper than owning an Apple device that was still supported.
If you don't need to build apps for Apple devices, don't buy any Apple devices because they're a rip off and they're getting worse.
As you can see the ECHR is a catastrophe. It definitely doesn't protect the rights it should - e.g the right to free speech is so hedged with caveats it is essentially worthless. In addition to the cases in the document above governments are allowed to restrict free speech to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
* interests of national security
* territorial integrity or public safety
* prevention of disorder or crime
* protection of health or morals
* protection of the reputation or the rights of others
* preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence
* maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary
Meanwhile it interprets Article 8 'the right to family life' in a way which blocks deportation
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...
So the government can't deport foreign criminals but it can imprison people who complain about foreign criminals for hate speech. I.e. the ECHR is non too subtly rigged in favour of the rights of migrants and against those of natives.
And you need to be a signatory to the ECHR to be in the EU
http://www.e-ir.info/2017/07/2...
On the face of it, Brexit has no implications whatever for the UK's relationship with the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), or for either of these institutions themselves. Formally, by leaving the EU, the UK would merely join the existing 19 non-EU states which belong to the 47-member Council of Europe, the parent body of the ECHR and the ECtHR. However, many Brexiteers are also hostile to the ECtHR, others fail to realise that departing the EU will leave the UK's ECHR commitments intact, and hostility towards the Strasbourg institutions is not limited to those who want to leave the EU. For example, as Home Secretary before the referendum vote, Teresa May, a Remainer, advocated UK withdrawal from the ECHR (call it 'ECxit'), in spite of the fact that belonging to the Council of Europe is effectively a condition of EU membership. However, she later announced that she had changed her mind because ECxit lacked sufficient Parliamentary support.
So May's idea of leaving the ECHR wasn't possible inside the EU. However it's probably possible outside it. And realistically it needs to be done - a British court ruling on British law is less likely to decide that foreign criminals can't be deported than a foreign court which doesn't really care about the costs to British people such a decision would impose.
Any court needs to weigh up two distinct sets of interests in a case like that - the interest of criminals to not be sent somewhere worse (dare I say 'a shithole country') and the interest of British citizens to not have criminals in their country. The ECHR can slap the UK government over the knuckles and feel good about itself without worrying too much of the costs such a decision impose. A British court might well not see things that way - and in fact the most unpopular decisions were when the ECHR overruled British courts.
In US terms imagine the following hypothetical. If NAFTA were like the EU - a wannabe state with citizens and courts - and a NAFTA court in Canada decided to overrule the US SCOTUS and block US deportation of a non US/non NAFTA citizen on the grounds it would impede their 'right to family life'.
Of course no US administration would agree to anything like this.
You could save even more power if you made your TV look like a scrying mirror
Actually on an OLED you could take advantage of the excellent contrast ratio and zero power for black pixels to have demonic faces appear very faintly on the TV is scrying mirror mode. Not all the time, perhaps just late at night when people come in and turn off the lights, just before they leave the room. A sort of 'you can see it out of the corner of your eye' thing.
Care to elaborate why it should be banned?
I think most people could live with the restriction that you can't incite imminent lawless action . However that's not what is happening. If you post "Kill all whites/men!" on social media nothing will happen to you. However if you complain about immigrants raping the natives like Storch and Weidel did you'll get silenced.
And the authorities don't seem at all concerned when AntiFa incite mobs online to attack people complaining about immigration. AntiFa act like the brownshirts of the establishment to silence views the establishment doesn't like.
And frankly if you trust an establishment with the power of censorship to only suppress speech which incites imminent lawless action you're a fool - they'll inevitably abuse that power to suppress criticism of their policies.
Even if they could only a small minority of people will use Tor. That's the lesson of China unfortunately - you don't need to block unapproved opinions completely. You just need to make them hard to get to and at the same time run a campaign in the media you control to say foreign sites are spreading porn and degeneracy and that visiting them is unpatriotic.
The western version of this is when the mainstream sites started to call gab.ai, voat and minds.com 'Alt Right', 'fake news' and/or 'Russian propaganda'
Also of course Google/Apple pulled the gab app from their app stores. At that point you could still get an apk file and install it at least on Android, but not many people did. So gab.ai weren't able to have much effect on the narrative that the mainstream sites were pushing.
I.e. censorship doesn't need to be completely bulletproof to have an effect - you just need to make it hard to see alternative sites and easy to see the non alternative ones. And then have the non alternative ones libel the shit out of the alternatives. And then you've got control of the narrative.
At that point most people will decide to stick with the non alternative sites. This will work so long as the non alternative sites will all collude in the libelling either because they're forced by government fiat (China) or because they're ideological echo chambers that have already purged dissenters internally (the US) and can thus act in a unified way against the alternative sites the dissenters have fled to.
Funny thing is when China started to try it all the tech giant CEOs said it wouldn't work. Now they see it does they're doing it themselves, and no doubt patting themselves on the back for stopping Alt Right Russian fake news trolls.