This raises an interesting point though. Would U.S. spies distributing information on how to use Tor in countries with oppressive censorship laws be considered evil? I don't think it's proper to automatically consider law-breaking as a mark of evil, or you're going to have to explain to everyone why Rosa Parks was so villainous. Okay, she wasn't a spy, but Harriet Tubman was, and history was careful to document all of the evils committed by her.
I won't get all preachy and pretend the U.S. has some kind of moral high ground or is always one of the good guys, but I think the reasoning that you're employing is overly simplistic and I seriously doubt that you apply it uniformly as well.
That's begging the question a bit. I don't think I've seen more than a handful of online ads that have shaped my decisions in any way, and none of them were political. I don't believe that most of the other posters here would say anything differently and if they did, would probably lean more towards no online ads influencing them.
I think that companies have realized that ads aren't worth nearly as much as they once thought they were, or that there are far superior alternatives. If you look at what companies are doing, they're making direct payments to so-called online influencers who have built up large communities. Getting these people to endorse products (even if they're not astroturfing) gets much better returns.
It's actually pretty funny in a way. It's like someone took every single ultra-progressive whack-job trope or talking point and rammed it into one piece, and I haven't even gotten through the first third of it yet.
The OP is saying that Catholicism (or any religion for that matter) itself is unscientific (which doesn't prohibit the people who follow it from being scientific) since it purports a belief in something that is at present (and likely will always be) unfalsifiable. Realistically though, that statement was only added so some nitwit didn't try to troll by complaining than western religions aren't any better than the so-called pagan religions. It seems as though you found a way anyhow though.
You'd need to find something that would mess with all of the different phone brands. People at parties who are checking their phones need to learn how to interact with other people.
I'd have to say this is one I'd put on my short list to consider buying, along with Fallout 76.
This game wasn't really on my radar, but maybe I'll check it out. After I get through the pile of other games that I have yet to play.
However, I'm not touching Fallout 76. They pretty much stripped out everything that I enjoy in a Fallout game to make an online shooter. I'm guessing that they were aiming for something like Destiny (which I haven't played, but am aware of) instead of a traditional Fallout game. Then again, Bethesda isn't very good at those and Fallout 4 was utter crap compared to New Vegas. They should really just let Obsidian make those so that they can concentrate on other stuff.
I suppose there's two sides to that. If you buy now, you don't have to feel like something better will just come out next year, at least not if you're just going to stick with Apple no matter what and not consider getting a PC. And to be fair, given how little Intel has progressed with their CPUs until very recently, there hasn't been a lot of reason to upgrade.
What I'm most interested in is the SoC in the new iPad. It's probably more powerful than what they put in the new Air, so I'm wondering how much longer until Apple ditches Intel entirely. You have to think that they've been planning for it for some time now.
Fair point, but still doesn't change the fact that if you can upgrade the memory yourself there's no point at all to pay the Apple tax. I haven't checked recently, but you should be able to get 32 GB for well under $300.
Apple always makes the entry tier for their products crappy so push people into the next product wrung where they charge an extra $200+ for components that cost them maybe $20, so that it's pretty much pure profit. Then they've got the high-end model that's even more expensive, but isn't that much better so you feel like you're still getting a hell of a deal. It's a pretty well known marketing gimmick to get people to upgrade.
However, here there's no need since the user can just buy their own memory if they want it.
100 times as much water is used to create a lb of beef than a lb of crops!
The steak tastes at least 1,000 times better than the lettuce leaf though, so it's worth it.
I think in the long run the only chance we have is for us all to go vegan.
Eventually we'll be able to grow meat in labs and it won't be nearly as expensive or have anywhere near the environmental impact. At that point, I don't see anyone being vegan unless they have some rare condition that necessitates that kind of diet.
Also there are several thousand different species of mosquitos. Not all of them bite humans, so realistically you just need to eliminate those that do (or the ones that feed on both humans and some other animal that carries viruses dangerous to humans) and you've solved a good part of the problem.
There is a sense to this, but you'd probably need to redo a lot of other laws or you're going to get a lot of people personally incorporating for tax reasons. Essentially, you'd end up with a lot of people trying to like sovereign citizens where they're claiming that it's not CastrTroy who works for a company, but CastrTroy, LLC. that works for the company and receives the pay check, and being a business itself owes no taxes. There's probably whole layers of tax code fuckery that people would get up to.
Since the company essentially fired Rubin, I'm not sure what protection they gave him.
The previous story made it sound as though the money was actually through stock options or some other benefits package that he'd previously negotiated in order to stay with the company. Unless Google had some kind of morals clause as a part of that, they wouldn't have any good reason to deprive him of what they had already negotiated.
So the company investigated a report (i.e., they didn't just brush it off), removed Rubin after finding the allegation credible (i.e., merely likely enough to have happened), and paid him what he was owed based on previous negotiations. I'm not sure what Google did wrong in any of this to warrant a protest by anyone. Normally this is the type of shit that just gets covered up, so Google should be getting praised by the people protesting this if anything.
It seems like this is being pushed for large scale storage operations and isn't something that anyone would try to miniaturize. If that's the case, it makes the most sense to locate the compressors near the generation site. If you can build the storage beneath your wind or solar farm, there aren't too many people around to complain about any noise.
I'm sure there's some other catch though. I understand any type of large scale power storage is going to be expensive in general, so you might not see a lot of action here, but if there's easy money being left on the table, someone should have jumped by now. I'm guessing that there might be some wishful thinking buried in here that runs afoul of physics, much like all of those kickstarters for solar powered water bottles that are mathematically impossible.
Are the different operating systems or office applications so different that you couldn't pick up the other having learned one first? Programmers are expected to learn and use new languages all the time. They're often similar enough where this isn't a problem and for some that are similar enough you can almost be productive right away.
I think it's better to find people who can generalize their experience with one tool to another. If you have someone who can only do things in one particular way or with one particular tool, you're just limiting what you can do as a business because of an inflexible workforce.
Depends on the state. Non-compete clauses are unenforceable in some jurisdictions. IBM would want some of the people to stick around. You can't just take over a complex system from someone else and expect everything to run smoothly or know how to fix or extend it. Also, not everyone who works at Red Hat gets anything from the buyout unless they were regularly giving employees stock. A lot of people are going to want the stable paycheck of working for IBM instead of trying to start a new company.
However, some will inevitably get sick of working at IBM or end up being laid off at some point. If these people want to keep doing what they're doing, they can start a new company. If they're good at what they do, they probably won't have much trouble attracting some venture capital either.
Probably capital investment and lack of talent. It's not as though you can magically build a massive cloud infrastructure from the ground up in short order if you don't already have people who know what they're doing. You're going to need data centers, equipment, technicians, etc. It might take several years for everything you need to be build, delivered, and installed. Then you need to attract customers away from Red Hat, which may not be easy and while you've been building up just to reach the position where Red Hat is right now, they're unlikely to sit there and watch all of it happen.
IBM likely ran the numbers and concluded it was safer for them to buy Red Hat than to try to build a comparable business unit from within the company. Red Hat currently does about $3 billion annual in terms of revenue, so if IBM thinks that they can grow that further and cut some operation costs, then it might be more viable than sinking billions into their own solution and watching it struggle to gain market traction.
It's unlikely to be a problem for Microsoft. Both Nintendo and Sony had patents related to game controllers, but that did nothing to stop third party manufacturers, let alone Microsoft.
It's important to realize that no one has a patent for a controller or even a particular type. What they all have are utility patents covering their own specific implementation of that idea. Once you actually read one of those patents, it's often not all that difficult to imagine another implementation that's different in such a way to get around the patent, but results in a similar overall function.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, it scarcely prevents anyone from starting their own payment processing company. It appears as though they should have some free business already since the existing competition absolutely refuses to do business with them. Hell, you could make the argument that Gab (and other sites like it since it's hardly the only one) were created for exactly the same reason: Twitter was essentially a monopoly and didn't want to do business with certain people.
I think that the underlying issue there is that Republicans despise Democrats more than they hate Nazis or similar ilk. The same could be said of Democrats who despise Republicans more than they hate Antifa or similar groups. That is, they really don't like the most extreme elements of what could be broadly called their side, but they're too fixated on what the view as their main enemy to care or feel as though acknowledging that group in the same breath as themselves is just an attempt at a smear job. The more crafty (or perhaps the ones who don't minding playing with matches) among the parties even view those extremists as a kind of useful tool.
I think the only thing that really frees us from this is ultimately removing the first past the post election system so that we don't get a concentration of two parties that must naturally exist in opposition to each other. I wouldn't be surprised that if you took the platform for a party and asked everyone who considered themselves to be a part of that party about their honest opinion for all of the different issues, that on average you'd find people only supported about half of those positions personally. They're really only a member of that party because of a few, or perhaps maybe only one, key issue that they view as that important. You don't really find many candidates who are both pro-gun rights and pro-abortion rights for example. Once you free the Republicans from needing the white nationalist vote and the Democrats from needing the Antifa vote, I think you'll get both of those parties telling both of those other groups to fuck right off.
This partitioning is being driven by progressive extremists, for the express purpose of destroying America.
I think that's taking it a bit far and probably attributing reasons to most of the people who fall into that group that don't exist. In reality, the explanation is much more banal: They're doing it because they think it will impress other people like them. It's as simple and stupid as that. It's not really different than conservative Christians that try to take tough moral stances against homosexuality so that they can show everyone how Christian and moral they are.
Naturally this attracts a lot of sleazy people who want to hide behind the facade of moral superiority. They don't really care about the message, or even disagree with it, but find that they can hide behind it. Just like not all of those conservative Christians are closeted homosexuals, you can bet that of the people trying to appear to be the most virtuous, some are banging other men in private gay clubs. Just like you have no trouble finding many of the men who claim to be feminists have been harassing women and doing all of things they decry in public.
I don't think the political correctness really matters. Even if you quit dancing around some issues, the solutions that the different political factions have are so incompatible as to be incapable of compromise. In the end it comes down to dogma and you won't get the conservative Christian to go along with gay marriage any more than you'll get the super-woke progressive to agree that inherent gender differences exist. The gun nut will never agree to any form of gun control and the socialist will never agree that their economic policy just doesn't work. Once you hit the central tenants of some faith, it doesn't really matter.
In this case, does anyone that anti-Semitic ever listen to reason? Even if you let him run around screaming about the Jews on Twitter all day, is he ever going to listen to anyone who he doesn't already agree with, or does he just invent some reason to lump any disagreement as proof that the Jews are controlling everyone? I almost think that social media disconnects people from one and other to the point where it's not possible to solve this issue even if you have a single service that everyone gets to use no matter what. I think that requires actually sitting down with people and talking to them. Fortunately, there's good reason to be hopeful that something like that actually works.
Slashdot Mirror
This raises an interesting point though. Would U.S. spies distributing information on how to use Tor in countries with oppressive censorship laws be considered evil? I don't think it's proper to automatically consider law-breaking as a mark of evil, or you're going to have to explain to everyone why Rosa Parks was so villainous. Okay, she wasn't a spy, but Harriet Tubman was, and history was careful to document all of the evils committed by her.
I won't get all preachy and pretend the U.S. has some kind of moral high ground or is always one of the good guys, but I think the reasoning that you're employing is overly simplistic and I seriously doubt that you apply it uniformly as well.
That's begging the question a bit. I don't think I've seen more than a handful of online ads that have shaped my decisions in any way, and none of them were political. I don't believe that most of the other posters here would say anything differently and if they did, would probably lean more towards no online ads influencing them.
I think that companies have realized that ads aren't worth nearly as much as they once thought they were, or that there are far superior alternatives. If you look at what companies are doing, they're making direct payments to so-called online influencers who have built up large communities. Getting these people to endorse products (even if they're not astroturfing) gets much better returns.
You must be a riot at concerts.
It's actually pretty funny in a way. It's like someone took every single ultra-progressive whack-job trope or talking point and rammed it into one piece, and I haven't even gotten through the first third of it yet.
This guy should perform in clubs.
It appears that the site has been slashdotted (when's the last time that's happened?) so here's a link to the page on archive.org for anyone who wanted to read it: https://web.archive.org/web/20160823082609/https://deepgreenresistancegreatbasin.org/civilization/colonialism/science-vs-the-real-world-on-mauna-kea/
The OP is saying that Catholicism (or any religion for that matter) itself is unscientific (which doesn't prohibit the people who follow it from being scientific) since it purports a belief in something that is at present (and likely will always be) unfalsifiable. Realistically though, that statement was only added so some nitwit didn't try to troll by complaining than western religions aren't any better than the so-called pagan religions. It seems as though you found a way anyhow though.
You'd need to find something that would mess with all of the different phone brands. People at parties who are checking their phones need to learn how to interact with other people.
I'd have to say this is one I'd put on my short list to consider buying, along with Fallout 76.
This game wasn't really on my radar, but maybe I'll check it out. After I get through the pile of other games that I have yet to play.
However, I'm not touching Fallout 76. They pretty much stripped out everything that I enjoy in a Fallout game to make an online shooter. I'm guessing that they were aiming for something like Destiny (which I haven't played, but am aware of) instead of a traditional Fallout game. Then again, Bethesda isn't very good at those and Fallout 4 was utter crap compared to New Vegas. They should really just let Obsidian make those so that they can concentrate on other stuff.
I suppose there's two sides to that. If you buy now, you don't have to feel like something better will just come out next year, at least not if you're just going to stick with Apple no matter what and not consider getting a PC. And to be fair, given how little Intel has progressed with their CPUs until very recently, there hasn't been a lot of reason to upgrade.
What I'm most interested in is the SoC in the new iPad. It's probably more powerful than what they put in the new Air, so I'm wondering how much longer until Apple ditches Intel entirely. You have to think that they've been planning for it for some time now.
Why would they bother making it user upgradable if they were going to lock it down like that?
.5 mm off the height of the product.
If they were going to do that, they'd just solder the RAM to the board so they could shave an extra
Fair point, but still doesn't change the fact that if you can upgrade the memory yourself there's no point at all to pay the Apple tax. I haven't checked recently, but you should be able to get 32 GB for well under $300.
Apple always makes the entry tier for their products crappy so push people into the next product wrung where they charge an extra $200+ for components that cost them maybe $20, so that it's pretty much pure profit. Then they've got the high-end model that's even more expensive, but isn't that much better so you feel like you're still getting a hell of a deal. It's a pretty well known marketing gimmick to get people to upgrade.
However, here there's no need since the user can just buy their own memory if they want it.
Apparently the RAM is user upgradable, so why you'd want to pay Apple's obscene markup to install a few DIMMs for you is beyond me.
100 times as much water is used to create a lb of beef than a lb of crops!
The steak tastes at least 1,000 times better than the lettuce leaf though, so it's worth it.
I think in the long run the only chance we have is for us all to go vegan.
Eventually we'll be able to grow meat in labs and it won't be nearly as expensive or have anywhere near the environmental impact. At that point, I don't see anyone being vegan unless they have some rare condition that necessitates that kind of diet.
Also there are several thousand different species of mosquitos. Not all of them bite humans, so realistically you just need to eliminate those that do (or the ones that feed on both humans and some other animal that carries viruses dangerous to humans) and you've solved a good part of the problem.
There is a sense to this, but you'd probably need to redo a lot of other laws or you're going to get a lot of people personally incorporating for tax reasons. Essentially, you'd end up with a lot of people trying to like sovereign citizens where they're claiming that it's not CastrTroy who works for a company, but CastrTroy, LLC. that works for the company and receives the pay check, and being a business itself owes no taxes. There's probably whole layers of tax code fuckery that people would get up to.
Since the company essentially fired Rubin, I'm not sure what protection they gave him.
The previous story made it sound as though the money was actually through stock options or some other benefits package that he'd previously negotiated in order to stay with the company. Unless Google had some kind of morals clause as a part of that, they wouldn't have any good reason to deprive him of what they had already negotiated.
So the company investigated a report (i.e., they didn't just brush it off), removed Rubin after finding the allegation credible (i.e., merely likely enough to have happened), and paid him what he was owed based on previous negotiations. I'm not sure what Google did wrong in any of this to warrant a protest by anyone. Normally this is the type of shit that just gets covered up, so Google should be getting praised by the people protesting this if anything.
It seems like this is being pushed for large scale storage operations and isn't something that anyone would try to miniaturize. If that's the case, it makes the most sense to locate the compressors near the generation site. If you can build the storage beneath your wind or solar farm, there aren't too many people around to complain about any noise.
I'm sure there's some other catch though. I understand any type of large scale power storage is going to be expensive in general, so you might not see a lot of action here, but if there's easy money being left on the table, someone should have jumped by now. I'm guessing that there might be some wishful thinking buried in here that runs afoul of physics, much like all of those kickstarters for solar powered water bottles that are mathematically impossible.
Are the different operating systems or office applications so different that you couldn't pick up the other having learned one first? Programmers are expected to learn and use new languages all the time. They're often similar enough where this isn't a problem and for some that are similar enough you can almost be productive right away.
I think it's better to find people who can generalize their experience with one tool to another. If you have someone who can only do things in one particular way or with one particular tool, you're just limiting what you can do as a business because of an inflexible workforce.
Depends on the state. Non-compete clauses are unenforceable in some jurisdictions. IBM would want some of the people to stick around. You can't just take over a complex system from someone else and expect everything to run smoothly or know how to fix or extend it. Also, not everyone who works at Red Hat gets anything from the buyout unless they were regularly giving employees stock. A lot of people are going to want the stable paycheck of working for IBM instead of trying to start a new company.
However, some will inevitably get sick of working at IBM or end up being laid off at some point. If these people want to keep doing what they're doing, they can start a new company. If they're good at what they do, they probably won't have much trouble attracting some venture capital either.
Probably capital investment and lack of talent. It's not as though you can magically build a massive cloud infrastructure from the ground up in short order if you don't already have people who know what they're doing. You're going to need data centers, equipment, technicians, etc. It might take several years for everything you need to be build, delivered, and installed. Then you need to attract customers away from Red Hat, which may not be easy and while you've been building up just to reach the position where Red Hat is right now, they're unlikely to sit there and watch all of it happen.
IBM likely ran the numbers and concluded it was safer for them to buy Red Hat than to try to build a comparable business unit from within the company. Red Hat currently does about $3 billion annual in terms of revenue, so if IBM thinks that they can grow that further and cut some operation costs, then it might be more viable than sinking billions into their own solution and watching it struggle to gain market traction.
Yeah once they're done, they're done. It's not like they couldn't just get together and and start a different distribution. Alas.
It's unlikely to be a problem for Microsoft. Both Nintendo and Sony had patents related to game controllers, but that did nothing to stop third party manufacturers, let alone Microsoft.
It's important to realize that no one has a patent for a controller or even a particular type. What they all have are utility patents covering their own specific implementation of that idea. Once you actually read one of those patents, it's often not all that difficult to imagine another implementation that's different in such a way to get around the patent, but results in a similar overall function.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, it scarcely prevents anyone from starting their own payment processing company. It appears as though they should have some free business already since the existing competition absolutely refuses to do business with them. Hell, you could make the argument that Gab (and other sites like it since it's hardly the only one) were created for exactly the same reason: Twitter was essentially a monopoly and didn't want to do business with certain people.
I think that the underlying issue there is that Republicans despise Democrats more than they hate Nazis or similar ilk. The same could be said of Democrats who despise Republicans more than they hate Antifa or similar groups. That is, they really don't like the most extreme elements of what could be broadly called their side, but they're too fixated on what the view as their main enemy to care or feel as though acknowledging that group in the same breath as themselves is just an attempt at a smear job. The more crafty (or perhaps the ones who don't minding playing with matches) among the parties even view those extremists as a kind of useful tool.
I think the only thing that really frees us from this is ultimately removing the first past the post election system so that we don't get a concentration of two parties that must naturally exist in opposition to each other. I wouldn't be surprised that if you took the platform for a party and asked everyone who considered themselves to be a part of that party about their honest opinion for all of the different issues, that on average you'd find people only supported about half of those positions personally. They're really only a member of that party because of a few, or perhaps maybe only one, key issue that they view as that important. You don't really find many candidates who are both pro-gun rights and pro-abortion rights for example. Once you free the Republicans from needing the white nationalist vote and the Democrats from needing the Antifa vote, I think you'll get both of those parties telling both of those other groups to fuck right off.
This partitioning is being driven by progressive extremists, for the express purpose of destroying America.
I think that's taking it a bit far and probably attributing reasons to most of the people who fall into that group that don't exist. In reality, the explanation is much more banal: They're doing it because they think it will impress other people like them. It's as simple and stupid as that. It's not really different than conservative Christians that try to take tough moral stances against homosexuality so that they can show everyone how Christian and moral they are.
Naturally this attracts a lot of sleazy people who want to hide behind the facade of moral superiority. They don't really care about the message, or even disagree with it, but find that they can hide behind it. Just like not all of those conservative Christians are closeted homosexuals, you can bet that of the people trying to appear to be the most virtuous, some are banging other men in private gay clubs. Just like you have no trouble finding many of the men who claim to be feminists have been harassing women and doing all of things they decry in public.
I don't think the political correctness really matters. Even if you quit dancing around some issues, the solutions that the different political factions have are so incompatible as to be incapable of compromise. In the end it comes down to dogma and you won't get the conservative Christian to go along with gay marriage any more than you'll get the super-woke progressive to agree that inherent gender differences exist. The gun nut will never agree to any form of gun control and the socialist will never agree that their economic policy just doesn't work. Once you hit the central tenants of some faith, it doesn't really matter.
In this case, does anyone that anti-Semitic ever listen to reason? Even if you let him run around screaming about the Jews on Twitter all day, is he ever going to listen to anyone who he doesn't already agree with, or does he just invent some reason to lump any disagreement as proof that the Jews are controlling everyone? I almost think that social media disconnects people from one and other to the point where it's not possible to solve this issue even if you have a single service that everyone gets to use no matter what. I think that requires actually sitting down with people and talking to them. Fortunately, there's good reason to be hopeful that something like that actually works.