What's the alternative? Only allow people born in an area to vote, thus stopping people who move there from changing the dynamic... It is impossible to have a system where any decent sized group of people can all live under exactly the rules they want.
With 2 billion dollars to purchase the company and who knows how much else invested into R&D, it has to be targeted at the average person just to break even.
Most people weren't about to buy Oculus even if it was $200 because they wouldn't have a PC powerful enough to run it so I'm really not sure your logic holds up; especially as it was pretty obvious it was never going to be aimed at the 'average person'. I doubt it's ever been likely its target at launch would be the average PC gamer. As for blaming Facebook, that seems like a massive uninformed leap. If anyone could afford to subsidise a loss making device it's them, so god knows why you'd expect it to be cheaper or last longer while losing money if they weren't owned by a major tech company.
curious that no mention is made on main post or in news article (from state owned propagandist bbc)
Not really, because this isn't a story about a different reserve, not that you'd let them stop you going off on an unrelated rant; I guess you got fed up of waiting for people to actually want your opinion on the matter so now you just project it it anywhere you can imagine up a tenuous link.
Or would simply repeating the text of the law itself constitute warning someone?
Regardless of whether the government should or shouldn't be restricting companies from warning customers about government activity, if they are going to do it then the laws will be pretty broad and won't be easily dodged by semantic games like this. We already live in a world where intent and/or motive can be criminal (for better of worse), thus "teaching someone chemistry" can be illegal (in the UK at least) if the lessons were focused on producing viable explosives and you could be reasonably assumed to know the person you were teaching had criminal intent.
The issue with so much of the debate around privacy is that the vast majority of people accept that the government should have the ability to override protections; that majority is then split into thousands of different camps on where the limits are and what the safeguards should be. I was speaking to an intelligent relative the other day who thought that the powers the government of the UK want to stop unbreakable encryption was reasonable but thought it was somehow different to, the entirely unacceptable in his opinion, concept of the government being allowed to open all written correspondence due to speed of distribution. After a brief introduction to the concept of one time pad encryption (where the pad could easily be sent via post) his perception changed considerably; but there are millions of voters who aren't technically informed enough to be aware of such concepts and we can't viably inform them all.
Firstly cognitive dissonance isn't a characteristic it is a state you can be in. Lawyers aren't 'trained' in cognitive dissonance, nor are they trained specifically to resist the basic human urge to reduce the dissonance; though their training in general likely does do this. Furthermore being able to handle cognitive dissonance without needing to reduce it is an incredibly useful skill to have, and exactly the kind of skill a good leader or representative should have.
Look I love Gandhi's wise words as much as anyone, however given that he never said that how about we consider some of his actual wise words and how well they reflect on Trump's behaviour?
Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding.
Any more crazy you need to get out of your system? Sadly as a current liberal no one has yet explained to me how I can stop loons like you from saying anything:(
... Who is blocking trump but not blocking ISIS? Who would sit there and say "I can deal with people that nail children to the wall while their mothers are raped behind them... but Trump... Too much."... Who does that?
Me for starters, even when you poorly try to misconstrue the position like a true keyboard warrior. Nothing about the coverage of Trump is news; it can all be summed up as "Populist ideologue says something half-considered and offensive" (depressingly similar to what a lot of ISIS's populist ideologues spout I imagine, though admittedly with less calls for beheadings). You don't appear to be responding to someone who mentioned safe spaces, or a summary that mentions safe spaces, so god knows why you went on a rant about hipsters. You also got the origin of the term wrong, which is odd given how much its imagined misuse bothered you.
A lot of people would see the right to disagree, or dislike things, as pretty inherently American; apparently you disagree, so maybe you dislike America and would be happier somewhere else.
I note also that Tashfeen Malik was muslim, and preventing her from entering the country might have prevented the San Bernardino attack [wikipedia.org].
To use the same awful phrase as you: Really? Really ? That's your argument?
Columbus was European, so let's ban all future European immigration in case they do huge damage to the indigenous population.
Oh please. Show me an example of a company like Facebook/Google/Twitter refusing to give an American court user data... still not found any? And what exactly would happen if they didn't: criminal charges for senior executives and fines so big it'd blow our minds.
Even ignoring your hyperbole, the distance in this case is more than double your example, a wind turbine is around 40 decibels at 300 meters which is about as loud as a modern fridge (not exactly something terrible outside, and something you won't here inside). Compared to the noise pollution many have from major roads, airports, sports stadiums etc wind turbines are nothing. I'd happily live near wind turbines, especially if it means there's less pollution from conventional power plants in the air.
One thing I *haven't* seen is a rational explanation of why a temporary ban on Muslim immigration isn't a common-sense response to an immediate problem.
Then your close mindedness is the limitation not reality. There are already nearly 3 million Muslims in America, anything that makes them feel more discriminated against or ramps up the Muslims are dangerous rhetoric (which banning all Muslim immigrants clearly would) is very likely more dangerous than the risk that immigration poses.
But then you're clearly not looking for a balanced perspective, you're too busy drowning in the cool-aid. Anyone who can blatantly lie and claim Trump has only said something unacceptable about a woman once has already decided that the truth is to be avoided.
History will judge those involved unfavorably, and the outcome demonstrates the foolish, small-minded and parochial mentality which dominates the Trump's dangerous experiment with fascist demagoguery
I didn't compare gun owning to anything, you just misread something and made a massive unwarranted leap. I pointed out that it is a logical fallacy to suggest only someone with experience of something can have an informed opinion, then gave an extreme example to highlight an egregious example of the fallacy. I'm actually in favour of less gun restrictions in my own nation, though they are far far more restrictive here than in the US.
What is stunningly stupid are people who don't know the first thing about guns attempting to regulate and ban them.
Nobody doesn't know the first thing about guns, it's a blatant straw man argument; this is just another ridiculous attempt to defend gun ownership via the "no true Scotsman" fallacy by claiming anyone without the level of knowledge of guns gained from owning and operating one knows anything about guns and thus can't have a valid opinion. If the best source you can provide for 'facts' defending gun ownership is a completely one sided imgur page then forgive me for not being impressed.
Most of the anti gun crowd, has never seen or held a gun in their lives.
What a stunningly stupid argument to defend gun ownership. You don't have to own slaves in order to be allowed an opinion on slavery or for that to be an informed one.
Your use of the phrase 'adapters' isn't a good indication of your understanding of evolutionary biology. Individual lifeforms don't adapt, at least not in a useful sense, what you'd want would be candidates who are inherently more viable in the environment. Given the universality of gravity on earth it is very unlikely that there is a considerable difference in viability in low gravity between individuals, unlike for example disease resistance.
The first few generations will have issues, but evolution will adapt to the lower gravity with each new generation.
That's a rather definitive statement for someone who, one assumes, is not an expert on the impact of low gravity on the human body. There has never been a human pregnancy or birth in anything other than earth gravity; it could well be impossible for all either of us know. Evolution isn't magical, there is a limit to how inhospitable an environment can be before the odds of life adapting before extinction becomes low.
Yes. Apparently you value quantity of channels over quality of channels and total amount of quality programming. I value availability of quality content over the number of channels is is split over. I think what's actually happening is you're fixated on the concept of getting 14 channels from the current selection, or similar, rather than getting 14 quality TV channels. Given that 14 channels is 2,352 hours of programming a week, even if only 3% of what was shown was of interest to you then that's 70 hours of TV a week.
So would a proposed road, or anything else that takes any amount of land that previously was touched by the sun and stops the sun reaching soil or something growing in it; thus you're supporting a pedantic and pointless argument at best, and almost certainly an attempt to mislead people into thinking it affects vegetation on a wider scale.
Furthermore it doesn't have to be that way. We've got multiple solar developments over here that are used for grazing livestock (generally sheep). If you can place solar panels such that grass can grow underneath them in the UK with our modest allocation of sunlight then it shouldn't be difficult in somewhere like NC.
Like your shit doesn't stink as bad. There are plenty of stupid people, and America has its fair share. It also has a fair share of extraordinarily ordinary and exceedingly intelligent ones. Any deviation in distribution from the developed worlds average is almost certainly minimal. Insinuating that a country is full or morons isn't going to achieve any kind of constructive discussion.
As other people have pointed out here there are other reasons why the project was turned down that probably paid a bigger part; however, a story about a couple of deranged residents causing concern amongst the uninformed population makes for a better 'news' story.
Sorry, but for $40 a month I'd sure as hell want more than 14 channels.
Why? From my experience the more TV channels a country has the less decent TV there is and the harder it is to find. 14 Channels of decent quality material would be incredibly good value at $40.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the alternative? Only allow people born in an area to vote, thus stopping people who move there from changing the dynamic... It is impossible to have a system where any decent sized group of people can all live under exactly the rules they want.
Watch out everyone, internet hard-man coming through...
Most people weren't about to buy Oculus even if it was $200 because they wouldn't have a PC powerful enough to run it so I'm really not sure your logic holds up; especially as it was pretty obvious it was never going to be aimed at the 'average person'. I doubt it's ever been likely its target at launch would be the average PC gamer. As for blaming Facebook, that seems like a massive uninformed leap. If anyone could afford to subsidise a loss making device it's them, so god knows why you'd expect it to be cheaper or last longer while losing money if they weren't owned by a major tech company.
Not really, because this isn't a story about a different reserve, not that you'd let them stop you going off on an unrelated rant; I guess you got fed up of waiting for people to actually want your opinion on the matter so now you just project it it anywhere you can imagine up a tenuous link.
Regardless of whether the government should or shouldn't be restricting companies from warning customers about government activity, if they are going to do it then the laws will be pretty broad and won't be easily dodged by semantic games like this. We already live in a world where intent and/or motive can be criminal (for better of worse), thus "teaching someone chemistry" can be illegal (in the UK at least) if the lessons were focused on producing viable explosives and you could be reasonably assumed to know the person you were teaching had criminal intent.
The issue with so much of the debate around privacy is that the vast majority of people accept that the government should have the ability to override protections; that majority is then split into thousands of different camps on where the limits are and what the safeguards should be. I was speaking to an intelligent relative the other day who thought that the powers the government of the UK want to stop unbreakable encryption was reasonable but thought it was somehow different to, the entirely unacceptable in his opinion, concept of the government being allowed to open all written correspondence due to speed of distribution. After a brief introduction to the concept of one time pad encryption (where the pad could easily be sent via post) his perception changed considerably; but there are millions of voters who aren't technically informed enough to be aware of such concepts and we can't viably inform them all.
Firstly cognitive dissonance isn't a characteristic it is a state you can be in. Lawyers aren't 'trained' in cognitive dissonance, nor are they trained specifically to resist the basic human urge to reduce the dissonance; though their training in general likely does do this. Furthermore being able to handle cognitive dissonance without needing to reduce it is an incredibly useful skill to have, and exactly the kind of skill a good leader or representative should have.
To be fair, Israel may not have gotten that information by spying. Domeone with access deciding to give it to Israel for example.
Any more crazy you need to get out of your system? Sadly as a current liberal no one has yet explained to me how I can stop loons like you from saying anything :(
Me for starters, even when you poorly try to misconstrue the position like a true keyboard warrior. Nothing about the coverage of Trump is news; it can all be summed up as "Populist ideologue says something half-considered and offensive" (depressingly similar to what a lot of ISIS's populist ideologues spout I imagine, though admittedly with less calls for beheadings). You don't appear to be responding to someone who mentioned safe spaces, or a summary that mentions safe spaces, so god knows why you went on a rant about hipsters. You also got the origin of the term wrong, which is odd given how much its imagined misuse bothered you.
A lot of people would see the right to disagree, or dislike things, as pretty inherently American; apparently you disagree, so maybe you dislike America and would be happier somewhere else.
To use the same awful phrase as you: Really? Really ? That's your argument?
Columbus was European, so let's ban all future European immigration in case they do huge damage to the indigenous population.
Oh please. Show me an example of a company like Facebook/Google/Twitter refusing to give an American court user data... still not found any? And what exactly would happen if they didn't: criminal charges for senior executives and fines so big it'd blow our minds.
Even ignoring your hyperbole, the distance in this case is more than double your example, a wind turbine is around 40 decibels at 300 meters which is about as loud as a modern fridge (not exactly something terrible outside, and something you won't here inside). Compared to the noise pollution many have from major roads, airports, sports stadiums etc wind turbines are nothing. I'd happily live near wind turbines, especially if it means there's less pollution from conventional power plants in the air.
Then your close mindedness is the limitation not reality. There are already nearly 3 million Muslims in America, anything that makes them feel more discriminated against or ramps up the Muslims are dangerous rhetoric (which banning all Muslim immigrants clearly would) is very likely more dangerous than the risk that immigration poses.
But then you're clearly not looking for a balanced perspective, you're too busy drowning in the cool-aid. Anyone who can blatantly lie and claim Trump has only said something unacceptable about a woman once has already decided that the truth is to be avoided.
Fixed that for him.
I didn't compare gun owning to anything, you just misread something and made a massive unwarranted leap. I pointed out that it is a logical fallacy to suggest only someone with experience of something can have an informed opinion, then gave an extreme example to highlight an egregious example of the fallacy. I'm actually in favour of less gun restrictions in my own nation, though they are far far more restrictive here than in the US.
Nobody doesn't know the first thing about guns, it's a blatant straw man argument; this is just another ridiculous attempt to defend gun ownership via the "no true Scotsman" fallacy by claiming anyone without the level of knowledge of guns gained from owning and operating one knows anything about guns and thus can't have a valid opinion. If the best source you can provide for 'facts' defending gun ownership is a completely one sided imgur page then forgive me for not being impressed.
What a stunningly stupid argument to defend gun ownership. You don't have to own slaves in order to be allowed an opinion on slavery or for that to be an informed one.
Your use of the phrase 'adapters' isn't a good indication of your understanding of evolutionary biology. Individual lifeforms don't adapt, at least not in a useful sense, what you'd want would be candidates who are inherently more viable in the environment. Given the universality of gravity on earth it is very unlikely that there is a considerable difference in viability in low gravity between individuals, unlike for example disease resistance.
That's a rather definitive statement for someone who, one assumes, is not an expert on the impact of low gravity on the human body. There has never been a human pregnancy or birth in anything other than earth gravity; it could well be impossible for all either of us know. Evolution isn't magical, there is a limit to how inhospitable an environment can be before the odds of life adapting before extinction becomes low.
Yes. Apparently you value quantity of channels over quality of channels and total amount of quality programming. I value availability of quality content over the number of channels is is split over. I think what's actually happening is you're fixated on the concept of getting 14 channels from the current selection, or similar, rather than getting 14 quality TV channels. Given that 14 channels is 2,352 hours of programming a week, even if only 3% of what was shown was of interest to you then that's 70 hours of TV a week.
So would a proposed road, or anything else that takes any amount of land that previously was touched by the sun and stops the sun reaching soil or something growing in it; thus you're supporting a pedantic and pointless argument at best, and almost certainly an attempt to mislead people into thinking it affects vegetation on a wider scale.
Furthermore it doesn't have to be that way. We've got multiple solar developments over here that are used for grazing livestock (generally sheep). If you can place solar panels such that grass can grow underneath them in the UK with our modest allocation of sunlight then it shouldn't be difficult in somewhere like NC.
Like your shit doesn't stink as bad. There are plenty of stupid people, and America has its fair share. It also has a fair share of extraordinarily ordinary and exceedingly intelligent ones. Any deviation in distribution from the developed worlds average is almost certainly minimal. Insinuating that a country is full or morons isn't going to achieve any kind of constructive discussion.
As other people have pointed out here there are other reasons why the project was turned down that probably paid a bigger part; however, a story about a couple of deranged residents causing concern amongst the uninformed population makes for a better 'news' story.
Why? From my experience the more TV channels a country has the less decent TV there is and the harder it is to find. 14 Channels of decent quality material would be incredibly good value at $40.