And, lacking a second Lightning port, you can not charge the phone and listen to music at the same time while using that included adapter. The comment you were replying to was pretty clear on their complaint, but I'll pop it out for you:
sometimes I plug in the phone to charge it while it is just sitting there playing music
Can you buy a different adapter to enable that functionality for the iPhone? Sure. But, then, the included adapter is still irrelevant to this discussion. You might have had an argument if you had mentioned Apple's own solution to this problem, or any of the myriad solutions found on Kickstarter, Indiegogo, DX, AliExpress, eBay, Amazon... well... all over the place.
Or, I can just have the port built into my phone.
Yes, it's a problem. It's such a problem that an entire cottage industry sprung up, between the time the removal of the headphone port was announced and the time the phone was actually released, to address it. An industry built on selling "one more thing to remember to take up space, forget to bring with me, or lose". It's such problem that my wife, who has owned every model of iPhone since the 3Gs (save for the 5 series, she didn't like those for various reasons) chose to pass on the iPhone 7 and will likely make the same decision regarding the 7s, 8, 8s, and 9; at which point she'll basically be forced to switch to Android because her 6s Plus will no longer be a viable device.
Or, maybe, Apple will bring back the headphone jack. I won't be holding my breath, though.
It's not just my wife, either. I have a friend who buys everything Apple sells. If they sell it, he's bought at least one. He hasn't bought an iPhone 7. Yes, because of the jack. Hell, I was on the fence about switching from Android to iPhone, leaning toward the Apple side of the fence (I love my iPad and iOS has added some functionality that makes it more compatible with how I use my phone), until it was confirmed that the headphone jack was going away. I don't use it often, certainly not often enough to carry the dongle with me everywhere, or to remember to bring it when riding along in my buddy's car that has an AUX jack but no Bluetooth, or even to remember where the hell I stashed it so it wouldn't be needlessly taking up space on a shelf or my desktop. And yes, my friends usually rotate who controls the music, a different person for every leg of the trip. None of them have an iPhone, so it would be wasteful for everyone to keep a dongle in the car just for the one douchebag who bought the phone without a headphone jack.
Having the charger authenticate with the phone makes sure only approved devices get to provide the current that might otherwise be unsafe.
That doesn't stop a shoddy charger from blasting the data lines (used for authentication, so they can't exactly be left disconnected) with 120/240vAC. Hell, 120/240 over the charge lines would be enough to jump traces and completely negate any protection provided by the supposed "for safety reasons" authentication. It might stop a bad charger from dumping 6-12v through the port, but anything higher is gonna be problematic.
Know what else would prevent damage from shoddy chargers and still allow the charger to charge the phone? A zener diode with a 5.5v breakdown, reverse biased across the charging leads. Anything over 5.5v dumps straight to ground, 5.5v gets through to charge the phone. Sure, doesn't help with line-voltage AC across the port, but neither does the current (no pun intended) solution.
the only reason for Apple to ever switch to OLED is if they wanted to make the phone disposable garbage like Android phones.
OLED displays haven't been quick to wear out since shortly after BenQ-Siemens released the S88. In fact, I still have that phone (excellent camera) and, at a decade old the display is just starting to lose its blues.
Why, you open it up and look. If you find gluten, you remove it and replace it with... well, whatever one would substitute for gluten. Or, just take a bite and see if your dick flies off.
The problem is that this legislation would stop me from being able to buy a device I want
How would requiring the manufacturer to sell parts and make service and repair manuals available stop you from buying your super thin screw-free glued together phone?
Once you get past a certain point, the phone begins to lose its structural integrity, requiring a thicker case to preserve it. We met this point with the iPhone 5 and have been pushing past it ever since.
Since the plastic and rubber used to make cases is weaker than the metal used to make the phone body, every millimeter of phone needs to, necessarily, be replaced by more than a millimeter of case. You're absolutely right, we do notice it, but not the way you imply; our phones actually end up thicker after being placed into a truly protective (read: ugly) case than they would be if they were just made structurally sound in the first place. In fact, a properly durable phone plus a purely decorative case would likely be thinner than the current batch of weak phones in Otter Boxes, and look better to boot.
Of course, I say this being completely unaffected by any of it. I don't put my phone in my back pocket and sit my fat ass on it, I don't leave it on the edge of the desk or table, I take care not to drop it, and I don't work in a profession where I'm required to put it in harm's way; so, I don't use a case anyway. But, I do wish my phone was 1-2mm thicker so I could have that extra battery life -- it would more than double.
f they made a removeable battery that would make the iPhone at least 3 or 4 millimeters thicker and only Die Hard anti-MSFT people would still buy Apple with this kind of law in place
Apple would lose their thinness advantage only if you have your blinders on and pretend that the law would only affect Apple. Also, you have to honestly believe that Apple has a thinness advantage, which means ignoring all of the PC laptops that are within 1mm of the thickness of Apple's laptops and all of the non-Apple phones that are within 1mm of thickness of the various iPhone models.
In short, Apple never had a "thinness advantage", there simply exist a lot of idiots, who took their word for it and never looked at what else is out there, who believe that they do.
Interesting, I have audio equipment dating back to the 40's and 50's with 1/4" plugs and as far back as the 60's with 3.5mm plugs and all of them work just fine. I do recall having to resolder one back in the mid 90's, on a late 80's portable CD player that had been dropped on concrete and landed on the headphone plug just right. This is a connector that was chosen by audio professionals as a standard specifically because it is so robust; we haven't had it for over a hundred years because we're afraid of change, we've had it for that long because nothing truly better has come about.
We've had USB DACs for nearly 2 decades by now, and the idea of integrating one directly into headphones is also nothing new. If it were truly better, we'd have been using them. I have several, some high end, some low end, and I can tell you they are, at their best, on par with the 3.5mm jack; but, more typically, they're far worse. That's on top of the added cost, of course.
"that's the way things are. Theft happens so live with it"
Huh, funny, i never said that. I said don't make yourself the victim of choice. You know, if everyone chose to not make themselves the victim of choice, it would be much more difficult to make a living as a thief and, yes, we'd have less theft.
Move to Japan or Singapore and suddenly you realize it's not the way things are rather it's the way we let them be because we assume it's the way it is.
Except that theft still occurs in those places. You've never been to either of them, so you simply assume that's the way it is.
Yes, there's a fair bit less theft there, but there's still plenty; usually at the expense of American tourists with their "thieves just shouldn't steal" attitudes, who think they have no personal responsibility to protect themselves.
Oh, I got your point, but here's the thing: the people who live there don't think there are problems. It's not for me, I don't even like visiting my friends who live there, but they don't see the problems the way you or I might. I suppose that makes them... well... not problems, since the people there like the situation and the people who don't like it don't have to live there.
My point, which you clearly missed, is that it is very short-sighted and ignorant to call someone stupid for their preference in living conditions. Perhaps they simply have different priorities than you? I tend to think if it similar to how I wouldn't call someone who prefers Clover brewed coffee stupid for going through that complicated brew process (or paying someone to do it for them) just because I, personally, think it's a complicated waste of time on top of tasting awful. It's what they like and there's no other way to get it.
Is it possible to live better for a fraction of the cost of living in San Francisco? Well, it is certainly possible to live for a fraction of the cost; however, "better" is subjective. you and I may agree that life outside of that particular city is "better", but there are many who do not. Clearly, there are more who believe life is better there than there are places for them to live there. The smart ones figure out how to make it happen.
they don't insist that their morning lattes come from the same block they live on
Actually, insisting that your morning latte comes from the same block you live on can be very smart, if you do it right. After all, the Keurig in my kitchen on the same block I live on.
Would a drip brew be even smarter? Perhaps, if I were brewing more than one cup at a time. When I need to use enough grounds to brew a full pot just so the water doesn't bypass them, and I'm only interested in a single cup (or maybe two), the Keurig actually comes out ahead, even with the "expensive" K-cups. It's even farther ahead with reusable K-cups, as I need use only one Tbsp of grounds per cup and there is no water waste; my previous 8-cup drip needed 12Tbsp to brew 8 passable cups and water would simply bypass the grounds, resulting in a weak brew if you used less than 6Tbsp, which meant using enough coffee to brew 4 cups at a minimum, even if I only wanted one or two. Rather, it meant using enough coffee to brew 6 cups in my Keurig if I wanted anywhere between 1 and 4 cups, or enough to brew 12 cups in my Keurig if I wanted 8.
But yes, circling back around, leaving my block (let alone my house) to get a latte seems brilliant.
What car do you drive that can fit a normal sized laptop in the glove box? Or, perhaps, what tiny-ass laptop do you use that can fit in the average glove box?
No, you actually do have an obligation to not be naive and pretend crime can't happen.
That's not quite the same as saying dressing a certain way makes sexual assault not a crime; in fact, it states quite the opposite! Read the statement again, with your head located outside your rectum. When a rapist rapes, it is the rapists fault, as the rapist should not rape; when a rapist rapes YOU, however, you must ask yourself why that rapist (who would have raped anyway and is still full at fault for the actual rape) chose you and not someone else.
Is it okay for a rapist to rape you if you dress a certain way? Oh hell no, and nobody said it was. But, just knowing that the rapist is there and that the rapist will rape, regardless of you, you have a responsibility to acknowledge that fact and make yourself less of a target. Will that prevent the rape? No, because, and I'll repeat this again so you can't get confused and think I'm victim blaming, the rape is the rapist's fault. What it will prevent is your rape.
Now, let's apply that logic to a less sensitive subject so you can see how things work in the real world. If you, knowing that people steal shit from cars, leave a laptop sitting on the passenger seat of your unlocked car over night and it gets stolen, it is the thief's fault a laptop was stolen, but it is your fault it was your laptop that was stolen.
How does this work? It's quite simple, really.
The thief is going to steal a laptop, that is a decision the thief made and the thief is completely responsible for that decision. Neither you, nor me, nor the police, nor the thief's parents, nor anyone else holds any responsibility for that decision. However, you know that there exist people who make such decisions and it is up to you to protect yourself from them. If you do not, that is a decision you made and you are completely responsible for that decision. Neither the thief, nor me, nor the police, nor your parents, nor anyone else holds any responsibility for that decision.
If you didn't leave the laptop in plain view, would a laptop still have been stolen? Yes, because the thief decided they were going to steal a laptop. Wold it have been yours? No, because you decided not to allow it to happen.
As a victim of both theft and rape (among other various crimes) in my younger, more naive, years, I quickly developed an understanding of this concept. Perhaps not quickly enough, but I did develop it, nonetheless, where you (and many others) still seem to have not figured it out.
Is it my fault my rape occurred? No, but it is my fault I was chosen over someone else. Is it my fault an MP3 player was stolen from me? No, but it is my fault I left it unattended so that it may be stolen. Is it my fault I was robbed at gunpoint twice? No but, in both cases, it is my fault I was unarmed and alone in a high-crime area late at night.
Should I have been able to trust my rapist not to rape me? Should I have been able to leave my MP3 player (back when those were a new thing, mind you) at my desk for 5 minutes? Should I have been able to safely walk around, alone and unarmed, at night? In an ideal world, yes.
We, however, do not live in an ideal world, and you're not doing yourself, or anyone else, any favors by ignoring that fact while you insist that we should.
One thing we agree on, though, is that we should live in an ideal world. Our main point of contention is how to reconcile the fact that we do not. My belief is that we should not let ourselves be attractive victims to the crimes we know will be committed anyway. You seem to believe the exact opposite, for which I suppose I should thank you, as you make it that much easier to do what I believe is right when you set the bar so low for criminals.
You can have the crime and victimhoood, I've been done with it for over a decade.
Actually... The subsidies we currently have are socialist. Likewise the public option.
Mind you, I supported the ACA as Obama drafted it, when it included the public option. I also believe he should not have signed it as it returned to his desk.
Perhaps, if you'd address the first part of my post, the real point I was making, which was made in the first paragraph, you'd understand what I'm actually advocating for. Rather, you chose to cherry-pick a part of my post which appears to support your position only when taken out of context; then, you go ahead and completely mis-state your own argument on top of it.
Bravo. I now get to profit by selling popcorn to the audience ahead of the argument I'm sure you're gearing up for.
Part of me wants to think that Trump is purposely setting himself up to fail. Why would he do this? Because if he, with all of his money and influence, can fail, maybe we as a nation will see that money does not, and should not, equal "right", and will finally vote for change.
Of course, then the rational side of me speaks up to remind that this would be the most un-Trump thing ever and that he's going to fail despite his best efforts. We're fucked.
Meanwhile, I wasn't afforded the opportunity to put my life in the line for my country. Why? An ADHD (mis)diagnosis when I was 11. Why? Because any kid who's not doing their schoolwork must just not be paying attention; fuck the fact that I wasn't doing it as the year went by because I worked through all of my courses in the first couple months of the school year. It's not possibly anything to do with the fact that I was so focused, driven, and intelligent that I had already done the work by the time it was assigned and, instead, chose to occupy myself furthering my learning beyond where the school system wanted me to be at that point. No, the boomers in charge couldn't be assed to pay attention to what was really going on and, instead, labeled me as unable to focus, and lacking drive, though they did acknowledge my advanced intellignece.
Why? Because taking opportunities away from me and filing me away as a problem was easier than promoting my abilities.
And here's where I differ from most who shared my experience: I fought it. I took back the opportunities that were taken from me. At least, as much as possible; I still wasn't allowed to serve my country the way I wanted, despite being fully qualified to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
sometimes I plug in the phone to charge it while it is just sitting there playing music
Can you buy a different adapter to enable that functionality for the iPhone? Sure. But, then, the included adapter is still irrelevant to this discussion. You might have had an argument if you had mentioned Apple's own solution to this problem, or any of the myriad solutions found on Kickstarter, Indiegogo, DX, AliExpress, eBay, Amazon... well... all over the place.
Or, I can just have the port built into my phone.
Yes, it's a problem. It's such a problem that an entire cottage industry sprung up, between the time the removal of the headphone port was announced and the time the phone was actually released, to address it. An industry built on selling "one more thing to remember to take up space, forget to bring with me, or lose". It's such problem that my wife, who has owned every model of iPhone since the 3Gs (save for the 5 series, she didn't like those for various reasons) chose to pass on the iPhone 7 and will likely make the same decision regarding the 7s, 8, 8s, and 9; at which point she'll basically be forced to switch to Android because her 6s Plus will no longer be a viable device.
Or, maybe, Apple will bring back the headphone jack. I won't be holding my breath, though.
It's not just my wife, either. I have a friend who buys everything Apple sells. If they sell it, he's bought at least one. He hasn't bought an iPhone 7. Yes, because of the jack. Hell, I was on the fence about switching from Android to iPhone, leaning toward the Apple side of the fence (I love my iPad and iOS has added some functionality that makes it more compatible with how I use my phone), until it was confirmed that the headphone jack was going away. I don't use it often, certainly not often enough to carry the dongle with me everywhere, or to remember to bring it when riding along in my buddy's car that has an AUX jack but no Bluetooth, or even to remember where the hell I stashed it so it wouldn't be needlessly taking up space on a shelf or my desktop. And yes, my friends usually rotate who controls the music, a different person for every leg of the trip. None of them have an iPhone, so it would be wasteful for everyone to keep a dongle in the car just for the one douchebag who bought the phone without a headphone jack.
You shouldn't have... If you'd read on, you'd know she's running for a very powerful office and would be taking steps to ensure she doesn't win.
I can't just stand on the moon, chuck a rock at Istanbul and knock it back to Constantinople?
Disclaimer: I'm Apple shill/fanboi.
At least you admit it.
Having the charger authenticate with the phone makes sure only approved devices get to provide the current that might otherwise be unsafe.
That doesn't stop a shoddy charger from blasting the data lines (used for authentication, so they can't exactly be left disconnected) with 120/240vAC. Hell, 120/240 over the charge lines would be enough to jump traces and completely negate any protection provided by the supposed "for safety reasons" authentication. It might stop a bad charger from dumping 6-12v through the port, but anything higher is gonna be problematic.
Know what else would prevent damage from shoddy chargers and still allow the charger to charge the phone? A zener diode with a 5.5v breakdown, reverse biased across the charging leads. Anything over 5.5v dumps straight to ground, 5.5v gets through to charge the phone. Sure, doesn't help with line-voltage AC across the port, but neither does the current (no pun intended) solution.
Hey now, they sold like 5 different models to that guy. That's plural.
the only reason for Apple to ever switch to OLED is if they wanted to make the phone disposable garbage like Android phones.
OLED displays haven't been quick to wear out since shortly after BenQ-Siemens released the S88. In fact, I still have that phone (excellent camera) and, at a decade old the display is just starting to lose its blues.
Why, you open it up and look. If you find gluten, you remove it and replace it with... well, whatever one would substitute for gluten. Or, just take a bite and see if your dick flies off.
The problem is that this legislation would stop me from being able to buy a device I want
How would requiring the manufacturer to sell parts and make service and repair manuals available stop you from buying your super thin screw-free glued together phone?
Once you get past a certain point, the phone begins to lose its structural integrity, requiring a thicker case to preserve it. We met this point with the iPhone 5 and have been pushing past it ever since.
Since the plastic and rubber used to make cases is weaker than the metal used to make the phone body, every millimeter of phone needs to, necessarily, be replaced by more than a millimeter of case. You're absolutely right, we do notice it, but not the way you imply; our phones actually end up thicker after being placed into a truly protective (read: ugly) case than they would be if they were just made structurally sound in the first place. In fact, a properly durable phone plus a purely decorative case would likely be thinner than the current batch of weak phones in Otter Boxes, and look better to boot.
Of course, I say this being completely unaffected by any of it. I don't put my phone in my back pocket and sit my fat ass on it, I don't leave it on the edge of the desk or table, I take care not to drop it, and I don't work in a profession where I'm required to put it in harm's way; so, I don't use a case anyway. But, I do wish my phone was 1-2mm thicker so I could have that extra battery life -- it would more than double.
f they made a removeable battery that would make the iPhone at least 3 or 4 millimeters thicker and only Die Hard anti-MSFT people would still buy Apple with this kind of law in place
Apple would lose their thinness advantage only if you have your blinders on and pretend that the law would only affect Apple. Also, you have to honestly believe that Apple has a thinness advantage, which means ignoring all of the PC laptops that are within 1mm of the thickness of Apple's laptops and all of the non-Apple phones that are within 1mm of thickness of the various iPhone models.
In short, Apple never had a "thinness advantage", there simply exist a lot of idiots, who took their word for it and never looked at what else is out there, who believe that they do.
Interesting, I have audio equipment dating back to the 40's and 50's with 1/4" plugs and as far back as the 60's with 3.5mm plugs and all of them work just fine. I do recall having to resolder one back in the mid 90's, on a late 80's portable CD player that had been dropped on concrete and landed on the headphone plug just right. This is a connector that was chosen by audio professionals as a standard specifically because it is so robust; we haven't had it for over a hundred years because we're afraid of change, we've had it for that long because nothing truly better has come about.
We've had USB DACs for nearly 2 decades by now, and the idea of integrating one directly into headphones is also nothing new. If it were truly better, we'd have been using them. I have several, some high end, some low end, and I can tell you they are, at their best, on par with the 3.5mm jack; but, more typically, they're far worse. That's on top of the added cost, of course.
"that's the way things are. Theft happens so live with it"
Huh, funny, i never said that. I said don't make yourself the victim of choice. You know, if everyone chose to not make themselves the victim of choice, it would be much more difficult to make a living as a thief and, yes, we'd have less theft.
Move to Japan or Singapore and suddenly you realize it's not the way things are rather it's the way we let them be because we assume it's the way it is.
Except that theft still occurs in those places. You've never been to either of them, so you simply assume that's the way it is.
Yes, there's a fair bit less theft there, but there's still plenty; usually at the expense of American tourists with their "thieves just shouldn't steal" attitudes, who think they have no personal responsibility to protect themselves.
Cleveland and Detroit.
Oh, I got your point, but here's the thing: the people who live there don't think there are problems. It's not for me, I don't even like visiting my friends who live there, but they don't see the problems the way you or I might. I suppose that makes them... well... not problems, since the people there like the situation and the people who don't like it don't have to live there.
My point, which you clearly missed, is that it is very short-sighted and ignorant to call someone stupid for their preference in living conditions. Perhaps they simply have different priorities than you? I tend to think if it similar to how I wouldn't call someone who prefers Clover brewed coffee stupid for going through that complicated brew process (or paying someone to do it for them) just because I, personally, think it's a complicated waste of time on top of tasting awful. It's what they like and there's no other way to get it.
Is it possible to live better for a fraction of the cost of living in San Francisco? Well, it is certainly possible to live for a fraction of the cost; however, "better" is subjective. you and I may agree that life outside of that particular city is "better", but there are many who do not. Clearly, there are more who believe life is better there than there are places for them to live there. The smart ones figure out how to make it happen.
they don't insist that their morning lattes come from the same block they live on
Actually, insisting that your morning latte comes from the same block you live on can be very smart, if you do it right. After all, the Keurig in my kitchen on the same block I live on.
Would a drip brew be even smarter? Perhaps, if I were brewing more than one cup at a time. When I need to use enough grounds to brew a full pot just so the water doesn't bypass them, and I'm only interested in a single cup (or maybe two), the Keurig actually comes out ahead, even with the "expensive" K-cups. It's even farther ahead with reusable K-cups, as I need use only one Tbsp of grounds per cup and there is no water waste; my previous 8-cup drip needed 12Tbsp to brew 8 passable cups and water would simply bypass the grounds, resulting in a weak brew if you used less than 6Tbsp, which meant using enough coffee to brew 4 cups at a minimum, even if I only wanted one or two. Rather, it meant using enough coffee to brew 6 cups in my Keurig if I wanted anywhere between 1 and 4 cups, or enough to brew 12 cups in my Keurig if I wanted 8.
But yes, circling back around, leaving my block (let alone my house) to get a latte seems brilliant.
How is this flamebait? I've never owned a car that could fit a laptop in its glovebox and I'm curious what models can do this.
Got proof? I sure do, it's in the fine print of my insurance policy. Yours, too, if you have comprehensive coverage; I suggest you go read it.
What car do you drive that can fit a normal sized laptop in the glove box? Or, perhaps, what tiny-ass laptop do you use that can fit in the average glove box?
No, you actually do have an obligation to not be naive and pretend crime can't happen.
That's not quite the same as saying dressing a certain way makes sexual assault not a crime; in fact, it states quite the opposite! Read the statement again, with your head located outside your rectum. When a rapist rapes, it is the rapists fault, as the rapist should not rape; when a rapist rapes YOU, however, you must ask yourself why that rapist (who would have raped anyway and is still full at fault for the actual rape) chose you and not someone else.
Is it okay for a rapist to rape you if you dress a certain way? Oh hell no, and nobody said it was. But, just knowing that the rapist is there and that the rapist will rape, regardless of you, you have a responsibility to acknowledge that fact and make yourself less of a target. Will that prevent the rape? No, because, and I'll repeat this again so you can't get confused and think I'm victim blaming, the rape is the rapist's fault. What it will prevent is your rape.
Now, let's apply that logic to a less sensitive subject so you can see how things work in the real world. If you, knowing that people steal shit from cars, leave a laptop sitting on the passenger seat of your unlocked car over night and it gets stolen, it is the thief's fault a laptop was stolen, but it is your fault it was your laptop that was stolen.
How does this work? It's quite simple, really.
The thief is going to steal a laptop, that is a decision the thief made and the thief is completely responsible for that decision. Neither you, nor me, nor the police, nor the thief's parents, nor anyone else holds any responsibility for that decision. However, you know that there exist people who make such decisions and it is up to you to protect yourself from them. If you do not, that is a decision you made and you are completely responsible for that decision. Neither the thief, nor me, nor the police, nor your parents, nor anyone else holds any responsibility for that decision.
If you didn't leave the laptop in plain view, would a laptop still have been stolen? Yes, because the thief decided they were going to steal a laptop. Wold it have been yours? No, because you decided not to allow it to happen.
As a victim of both theft and rape (among other various crimes) in my younger, more naive, years, I quickly developed an understanding of this concept. Perhaps not quickly enough, but I did develop it, nonetheless, where you (and many others) still seem to have not figured it out.
Is it my fault my rape occurred? No, but it is my fault I was chosen over someone else. Is it my fault an MP3 player was stolen from me? No, but it is my fault I left it unattended so that it may be stolen. Is it my fault I was robbed at gunpoint twice? No but, in both cases, it is my fault I was unarmed and alone in a high-crime area late at night.
Should I have been able to trust my rapist not to rape me? Should I have been able to leave my MP3 player (back when those were a new thing, mind you) at my desk for 5 minutes? Should I have been able to safely walk around, alone and unarmed, at night? In an ideal world, yes.
We, however, do not live in an ideal world, and you're not doing yourself, or anyone else, any favors by ignoring that fact while you insist that we should.
One thing we agree on, though, is that we should live in an ideal world. Our main point of contention is how to reconcile the fact that we do not. My belief is that we should not let ourselves be attractive victims to the crimes we know will be committed anyway. You seem to believe the exact opposite, for which I suppose I should thank you, as you make it that much easier to do what I believe is right when you set the bar so low for criminals.
You can have the crime and victimhoood, I've been done with it for over a decade.
The same argument applies for a "laptop" that you MUST lug a power adaptor around with constantly.
Yes, I'll take the model with the 27" 4k power adapter.
EFI/BIOS, CPU microcode, wi-fi firmware, the list goes on...
Or, how about we stop rioting over every little thing? That would be real progress.
You're literally advocating for socialism.
Actually... The subsidies we currently have are socialist. Likewise the public option.
Mind you, I supported the ACA as Obama drafted it, when it included the public option. I also believe he should not have signed it as it returned to his desk.
Perhaps, if you'd address the first part of my post, the real point I was making, which was made in the first paragraph, you'd understand what I'm actually advocating for. Rather, you chose to cherry-pick a part of my post which appears to support your position only when taken out of context; then, you go ahead and completely mis-state your own argument on top of it.
Bravo. I now get to profit by selling popcorn to the audience ahead of the argument I'm sure you're gearing up for.
Part of me wants to think that Trump is purposely setting himself up to fail. Why would he do this? Because if he, with all of his money and influence, can fail, maybe we as a nation will see that money does not, and should not, equal "right", and will finally vote for change.
Of course, then the rational side of me speaks up to remind that this would be the most un-Trump thing ever and that he's going to fail despite his best efforts. We're fucked.
Meanwhile, I wasn't afforded the opportunity to put my life in the line for my country. Why? An ADHD (mis)diagnosis when I was 11. Why? Because any kid who's not doing their schoolwork must just not be paying attention; fuck the fact that I wasn't doing it as the year went by because I worked through all of my courses in the first couple months of the school year. It's not possibly anything to do with the fact that I was so focused, driven, and intelligent that I had already done the work by the time it was assigned and, instead, chose to occupy myself furthering my learning beyond where the school system wanted me to be at that point. No, the boomers in charge couldn't be assed to pay attention to what was really going on and, instead, labeled me as unable to focus, and lacking drive, though they did acknowledge my advanced intellignece.
Why? Because taking opportunities away from me and filing me away as a problem was easier than promoting my abilities.
And here's where I differ from most who shared my experience: I fought it. I took back the opportunities that were taken from me. At least, as much as possible; I still wasn't allowed to serve my country the way I wanted, despite being fully qualified to do so.