Somewhat true, however what does this have to do with things like whining that Hollywood favors more attractive, fit people? If anything that's the dichotomy. I see that as positive reinforcement - you can aspire to be fit and healthy like these people, others see it as shaming.
Some elaborate hack or something that requires you to put magnets on the gun isn't really that big of a deal. But being able to wear e.g. a different watch that jams all these guns is of course a much larger issue.
I find the whole idea of smart guns mostly silly. Even plain old guns, brand new designs or designs that have been tweaked and fine tuned for 100+ years, misfire sometimes. Adding another level of failure is pretty absurd.
I can see them making sense in special circumstances, though. One that leaps to mind is prison guards.
Neither one is a monopoly by any reasonable definition. The EU and in some cases US has redefined a fake concept of "demand-side monopoly". It's when you have literally dozens or more choices, but because everyone chooses one product over the others it's a "monopoly".
A real monopoly, no quotes, means you have little to no choice due to physical or regulatory limitations. Think water, oil, steel, etc...
But this is great, it's hilarious to see Google get theirs after whinging about MS in the past ant urging the EU to fine them.
I seem to remember Google cheerleading when the EU bureaucrats went after MS for similar nonsense. So this is great, hilarious in fact.
Also Trump should direct the DOJ to start looking at various EU companies for fake antitrust violations.
That's not a thing. Not in the context you imply. Legislative intent is a principal used to apply meaning to laws already passed in trying to determine their intent, where the wording of the law is open to interpretation.
It does not mean "Well, I think he made the law/EO for this reason so it's Unconstitutional."
Wait.. so taking money from rich people to give to poor people: OK. Taking money from rich states to give to poor states: OMG!!!?
Seems like a coherent worldview you guys have, to be sure.
And for the record you're not even right. The reason it's possible is because there is more land and fewer people. Pretty basic stuff here...
I feel like you just wanted to work in the "but CA pays more taxes!!!" talking point. Oddly enough, with regards to the rationality of your point, I think the people you despise most would have no issue with cutting off welfare dollars to the poor people in their states.
Derp. Yes, because each of the trillions of literal lifeless rocks in space need to be "protected" so that nobody and nothing can enjoy them.
If anything we should be seeding life wherever we can, build bacteria that can survive the different vaguely livable planets in our system, and launch them to the planets.
He can easily prove that he made a true statement, even if you take clicking "like" as a statement. He liked the comment he clicked on. Are they going to get him to testify against himself and say he _didn't_ actually like the comment?
This is incredibly stupid. The statement he made was "I like this statement." He did not claim anyone was racist or anything else.
Total dominance in the Server world? Please. You must think "little apache servers on the Internet" is the "Server Market". Some of you guys are so completely clueless about the real world.
Linux is obviously a huge piece of the market, but "total dominance"? Not out here in reality where the rest of us live.
We're sort of stuck, I don't know how we go back. What should happen is about 25% of the Federal government should be cut, and our Federal income tax load cut commensurately, then state and local governments should increase taxes to bring that burden back up to where it is, + or -.
Then we have more control as voters. I have 1/(state population) of a vote over spending, vs 1/(US population) as it is now for most spending (yes, this is simplified but close enough)..
But we're so programmed as Americans to think we have to have this Big Government group of people in Washington to do things that are better done locally that I don't see this ever happening.
Wow, you mean people don't start complex undertakings without a reason?! You are really pushing the forward boundaries of logical thought-modeling buddy! Next you'll tell me that people hold biases!
God, the dramatics. Is this happening all the time now with the myriad open hotspots in the world? I hadn't heard of rash of SWAT raids of McDonald's or Starbuck's.
I promise everything will be fine, you can stop hyperventilating over this non-issue.
As far as I knew nobody was going to force airlines to allow people to talk on their phones. So this would be allowing the airlines to make the decision, which puts it where it should be - the business side of the equation.
If some airlines, say more business oriented or in first class only, etc.. want to allow it then they should be able to.
The FCC and FAA should be deciding on the safety of using phones, not how annoying they are to some people.
There are people doing real, actual hard labor who wake up and find they can't do it anymore, where are the stories about them? Oh, but this is 'Google' so we're supposed to care?
You work to provide value to your employer, when you cease to do so your job is in jeopardy. And we always hear about the "bad" side of this but what about whoever got that job? They are probably pretty happy about it.
Converse of this story:
My name is Bryce McMillenial, I'm 32 and I've been looking for work forever. I'm young, healthy, and don't have a family so I really want somewhere I can work hard and have a chance at advancement. I recently found an opening at Google X working with drones, it's amazing!
It's so absurd. If you look at 10k years ago humans probably had an 18 hour a day, 365 days a year "workday" just to survive. 200 years ago, the average person probably needed to work 90 hours a week to have a lifestyle equivalent to a lower (but not lowest) class Indian or Chinese person.
And now people bitch and whine and moan because people who live like kings relative to most of humanity's history have to get by with only enough income to eat, have shelter, and have modern conveniences and entertainment. Oh, the fucking humanity.
The worst are the "but muh wage slaves!!!" people and the "work life balance!" assholes. Oh noes, you have to work in order to get other people to work for you (which is all money really is, a proxy for other people's labor)?!?!! Poor fucking babies.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should have anarchy and poor farms and shit like that. I believe in a reasonable welfare state, but jesus christ enough whining about needing to work to live like a king vs. merely a lucky American.
Rubbish. You're just picking winners (e.g. the small number of taxi drivers) over losers (the huge number of Uber or Lyft drivers). And your living wage shtick is fucking risible. It's an analog of the Parable of the Broken Window. Why, if we just make employers pay people more, everyone will benefit because then people will have more money to spend!
Good luck with that in a global economy. I'm sure China and India will be happy to play by those rules and force their own employers to pay people the equivalent of $35k a year or whatever insane number you and your ilk think Americans should be guaranteed. That's so laughable that it has no basis to even be in a reality based discussion. And in reply to your inevitable "but muh services are different from muh goods!!!!" prattling, in 15 years we will have automated cars. If you force the market by banning Uber/Lyft type services it will be in less than 8 years.
Your policies would only hasten us to the inevitable UBI system before we're really ready for it. And yes, I agree at some point some major changes will need to be made like a UBI.
Slashdot Mirror
Somewhat true, however what does this have to do with things like whining that Hollywood favors more attractive, fit people? If anything that's the dichotomy. I see that as positive reinforcement - you can aspire to be fit and healthy like these people, others see it as shaming.
Some elaborate hack or something that requires you to put magnets on the gun isn't really that big of a deal. But being able to wear e.g. a different watch that jams all these guns is of course a much larger issue.
I find the whole idea of smart guns mostly silly. Even plain old guns, brand new designs or designs that have been tweaked and fine tuned for 100+ years, misfire sometimes. Adding another level of failure is pretty absurd.
I can see them making sense in special circumstances, though. One that leaps to mind is prison guards.
Neither one is a monopoly by any reasonable definition. The EU and in some cases US has redefined a fake concept of "demand-side monopoly". It's when you have literally dozens or more choices, but because everyone chooses one product over the others it's a "monopoly".
A real monopoly, no quotes, means you have little to no choice due to physical or regulatory limitations. Think water, oil, steel, etc...
But this is great, it's hilarious to see Google get theirs after whinging about MS in the past ant urging the EU to fine them.
I seem to remember Google cheerleading when the EU bureaucrats went after MS for similar nonsense. So this is great, hilarious in fact. Also Trump should direct the DOJ to start looking at various EU companies for fake antitrust violations.
That's not a thing. Not in the context you imply. Legislative intent is a principal used to apply meaning to laws already passed in trying to determine their intent, where the wording of the law is open to interpretation.
It does not mean "Well, I think he made the law/EO for this reason so it's Unconstitutional."
Wait.. so taking money from rich people to give to poor people: OK. Taking money from rich states to give to poor states: OMG!!!?
Seems like a coherent worldview you guys have, to be sure.
And for the record you're not even right. The reason it's possible is because there is more land and fewer people. Pretty basic stuff here...
I feel like you just wanted to work in the "but CA pays more taxes!!!" talking point. Oddly enough, with regards to the rationality of your point, I think the people you despise most would have no issue with cutting off welfare dollars to the poor people in their states.
Derp. Yes, because each of the trillions of literal lifeless rocks in space need to be "protected" so that nobody and nothing can enjoy them.
If anything we should be seeding life wherever we can, build bacteria that can survive the different vaguely livable planets in our system, and launch them to the planets.
When was the last time you looked, 1987? If you live in the US you're off by at least a factor of 2.
Your reaction to vapor is psychosomatic. You're like the dude on Better Call Saul who is allergic to electromagnetism.
He can easily prove that he made a true statement, even if you take clicking "like" as a statement. He liked the comment he clicked on. Are they going to get him to testify against himself and say he _didn't_ actually like the comment?
This is incredibly stupid. The statement he made was "I like this statement." He did not claim anyone was racist or anything else.
Yeah, this place is a real haven of Microsoft lovers.
If anything, it's click-bait to get the angry dweebs to come in and foam at the mouth angrily over their 20-years outdated Microsoft hatred.
Total dominance in the Server world? Please. You must think "little apache servers on the Internet" is the "Server Market". Some of you guys are so completely clueless about the real world.
Linux is obviously a huge piece of the market, but "total dominance"? Not out here in reality where the rest of us live.
Let me get this straight. You and the other moron in the GP post basically have the same argument: "because it's so hard" sarcasm?
Guy invents automobile. You morons: "Because it's so hard to hop on my horse? LOL!!!"
Guy invents horn. You morons: "Because it's so hard to shrilly scream out my window LOL??"
Guy invents light bulb. You morons: "Because it's so hard to light a candle LOL!!!"
This place has really become a caricature of itself.
Yes, because Scurvy is a real problem in the US.
We're sort of stuck, I don't know how we go back. What should happen is about 25% of the Federal government should be cut, and our Federal income tax load cut commensurately, then state and local governments should increase taxes to bring that burden back up to where it is, + or -.
Then we have more control as voters. I have 1/(state population) of a vote over spending, vs 1/(US population) as it is now for most spending (yes, this is simplified but close enough)..
But we're so programmed as Americans to think we have to have this Big Government group of people in Washington to do things that are better done locally that I don't see this ever happening.
Wow, you mean people don't start complex undertakings without a reason?! You are really pushing the forward boundaries of logical thought-modeling buddy! Next you'll tell me that people hold biases!
No, an attorney might not argue that. You're being silly. FFS, some of you people are just out of your gourds.
God, the dramatics. Is this happening all the time now with the myriad open hotspots in the world? I hadn't heard of rash of SWAT raids of McDonald's or Starbuck's.
I promise everything will be fine, you can stop hyperventilating over this non-issue.
As far as I knew nobody was going to force airlines to allow people to talk on their phones. So this would be allowing the airlines to make the decision, which puts it where it should be - the business side of the equation.
If some airlines, say more business oriented or in first class only, etc.. want to allow it then they should be able to.
The FCC and FAA should be deciding on the safety of using phones, not how annoying they are to some people.
No, you don't get it.
Businesses should be in the business of taking care of employees and making sure everything is fair, not making money.
These companies should either eliminate negotiation altogether or just offer PoC/Women more money outright. They should not have to negotiate.
Now, this may sound absolutely fucking ridiculous to you, but that's the current prevailing thought in some circles.
There are people doing real, actual hard labor who wake up and find they can't do it anymore, where are the stories about them? Oh, but this is 'Google' so we're supposed to care?
You work to provide value to your employer, when you cease to do so your job is in jeopardy. And we always hear about the "bad" side of this but what about whoever got that job? They are probably pretty happy about it.
Converse of this story:
My name is Bryce McMillenial, I'm 32 and I've been looking for work forever. I'm young, healthy, and don't have a family so I really want somewhere I can work hard and have a chance at advancement. I recently found an opening at Google X working with drones, it's amazing!
It's so absurd. If you look at 10k years ago humans probably had an 18 hour a day, 365 days a year "workday" just to survive. 200 years ago, the average person probably needed to work 90 hours a week to have a lifestyle equivalent to a lower (but not lowest) class Indian or Chinese person.
And now people bitch and whine and moan because people who live like kings relative to most of humanity's history have to get by with only enough income to eat, have shelter, and have modern conveniences and entertainment. Oh, the fucking humanity.
The worst are the "but muh wage slaves!!!" people and the "work life balance!" assholes. Oh noes, you have to work in order to get other people to work for you (which is all money really is, a proxy for other people's labor)?!?!! Poor fucking babies.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should have anarchy and poor farms and shit like that. I believe in a reasonable welfare state, but jesus christ enough whining about needing to work to live like a king vs. merely a lucky American.
Yes, because of the _hordes_ of people who die of starvation in the US! Hordes, I tells ya!
Oh. Wait. That number is literally 0 if you exclude maybe the mentally ill wandering off into the woods and getting lost or something.
Rubbish. You're just picking winners (e.g. the small number of taxi drivers) over losers (the huge number of Uber or Lyft drivers). And your living wage shtick is fucking risible. It's an analog of the Parable of the Broken Window. Why, if we just make employers pay people more, everyone will benefit because then people will have more money to spend!
Good luck with that in a global economy. I'm sure China and India will be happy to play by those rules and force their own employers to pay people the equivalent of $35k a year or whatever insane number you and your ilk think Americans should be guaranteed. That's so laughable that it has no basis to even be in a reality based discussion. And in reply to your inevitable "but muh services are different from muh goods!!!!" prattling, in 15 years we will have automated cars. If you force the market by banning Uber/Lyft type services it will be in less than 8 years.
Your policies would only hasten us to the inevitable UBI system before we're really ready for it. And yes, I agree at some point some major changes will need to be made like a UBI.
A tremendously huge number of people, that's who. You're also "Windows?! Who still uses Windows!!?!" guy I bet, right?