That bluetooth headset isn't a pure resistive load, nor as heavy a load as the heating element in an e-cig. That said, I have a couple Firefly vaporizers and a Firefly 2, not the little cig-shaped and not used for nicotine; more medicinal than that. They're wonderful little devices, well built, but I also take care not to overwork the lithium bombs they contain, given the high-wattage load they power and the proximity to my face while they're powering said load. No need to condescend the bluetooth headset user, as even someone who is aware of the dangers will realize there really isn't any danger in that little headset. Perfectly acceptable to condescend to an e-cig user completely unaware of the (somewhat obvious) dangers of those devices, though; and I'd expect to be talked down to as an idiot if I held power on one of my Firefly vapes with a full battery, because the dangers are clear: arc flash from a failed heating element, explosion or fire from an overheated (overworked) battery, or both.
And yes, using the cheapest chinese shit batteries (with "fire" in the name, no less) or cells from a damaged laptop or tool pack is a bad choice.
I dunno man, the PC I bought in November (which I am currently typing this on) outspecs the highest-end MacBook Pro in every respect, including size, weight, and build quality, and cost me half as much (from memory: the highest-end configuration rMBP is about $3200 while I paid $1600) so Apple could well be doing a fair bit more for the money. It's also worth noting that this PC is a model that is roughly 2mo older than the 2013 (bought in early 2014) rMBP it works alongside, so Apple's had plenty of time to catch up to what was a mid-high-end PH laptop 3 years ago (almost to the day). Mind you, I bought the laptop (new in box, none of this open box or refurb shit) on an extreme sale and it should have cost me another $500 but that still makes it $1100 cheaper than a 3-year-newer and less capable machine.
Oh and, on top of being about 1mm thinner than the rMBP, I have actual RAM slots on this PC and dual m.2 SSDs. Oh, and better cooling. My rMBP kicks its fans up a LOT... and throttles shortly after; not sure how you're getting yours to run at turbo speeds, but congratulations, you got a good one. I have to actually constrict the airflow to the PC under heavy load to get it to throttle at all. Under moderate load it runs 10-15C cooler than the rMBP at idle. Oh, and it's a gaming rig, not even intended for professional use in any way, shape, or form; but it fits the bill better in every regard.
Perhaps that's why we disagree: you're not looking from the perspective of someone who has these two machines sitting side-by-side on the same desk, having torn both of them down to the frame and reassembled them just for kicks. My only gripe with the PC is, interestingly, also one of my gripes with the rMBP: it doesn't run Snow Leopard. I've liked OS X less and less with each release since SL and Adobe doesn't develop their tools for Linux so... Hi there, Windows, long time no see.
And I'm gonna guess I'm not so anti-Apple given that my household contains a 17" MBP, a 13" MBP, a 15" rMBP, a 1st gen iPad (still working), an iPad Air, iPad Air2, iPad Pro 9.7",an iPhone 6s Plus, and an Apple TV. You can blame my wife for the 13", the Air2, and the iPhone; the rest are mine (though the 1st gen iPad was hers and she wanted to toss it).
I get why RAM is soldered on in a consumer laptop, as well, and we agree on the reasoning. Once you start calling something "Pro", you need to stop treating it like a typical consumer good and make sure it keeps as much of its professional appeal as possible; for professional equipment that means maintainability and upgradability. Of course, that also means recognizing the difference between a "professional" user and a professional user; the former needs Word, Excel, and Outlook and a lightweight super portable machine is probably perfect for them, they should get a MacBook "Pro" (but Apple doesn't sell a machine with that label -- just one that deserves it). The latter, on the other hand, probably has a big beefy desktop workstation and generally doesn't move their laptop workstation around much (so weight and size are less of an issue) and, when they do need to work from a remote location, they need it to have as much beef behind it as their desktop, or at least as close as possible. That's what a professional user needs; not thin and light, but beefy and maintainable. Of course, those same professional users will probably also want something light and portable for general, off-hours, use. Apple could sell two laptops to these people, rather than zero, if they'd just figure that out.
As for whether or not 32GB of RAM is necessary in a laptop? Nah, I don't think it's necessary for even the most demanding single-host activities. If I need to test something on Windows, Linux, and OS X without closing my dev tools or rebooting a bunch of times, I can carry three laptops with me. Or, I can carry one slightly heavier laptop with 32GB of RAM and run Windows and Linux in VMs with 8GB each. Suddenly, that 1/4" of thickness doesn't seem like such a tradeoff, it's sure a hell of a lot thinner than two additional laptops, so if Apple doesn't want to sell that configuration, they could still at least sell a laptop with RAM slots and let the end user sort it out.
I think 4GB SODIMMs were the largest ones available when your 2011 MBP was introduced
Well, it was 2012 when I did the upgrade, so that may be true.
and that's why Apple said the maximum amount of RAM was 8GB. Larger modules came later.
In 2011, possibly. However, I said:
Let's look, first, at the last line of MacBook Pro to have user-serviceable RAM.
That is, not my 2011, which I was simply mentioning illustratively, but the current offering. Which still sells with a max of 8GB of RAM because, well, it hasn't seen a refresh since 2013. Incidentally, it only supports 16GB for the same reason; while Apple still claims it only supports up to 8GB (because that's how they sell it).
So, then, even if it is true that Apple claimed the 2011 MacBook Pro only supported8GB of RAM because that is all you could actually buy at the time, what's their excuse in 2016? Or even 2012?
Also, when you upgrade older systems and want to go above the original RAM maximum, you have to be careful about which modules you get. I'm typing this on an old Lenovo x200 that I recently bought used ($20!). When I went to upgrade it from the 2GB it came with to 8GB (which works although the original spec maximum was 4GB), the first set of modules I received didn't work. You have to use low-density modules (8 chips on each side), not higher density ones (4 chips on each side or 8 on just one side), because they're the only 4GB modules that the motherboard will recognize.
You can look up the chipset and CPU in your system to see what they support, it's really not rocket science. That said, I fail to see how that is relevant here.
Yes, I spend $50 to upgrade the memory on a $20 laptop. The modules that were incompatible would have only been $30. But all in all that means that I have a $70 laptop that suits my needs and has a wonderful keyboard. I'll take that.
Indeed, and that was exactly my point. As a "professional" machine, it needs to be user-upgradable; anything less is "prosumer" at best.
I paid $0 for the 2011 MacBook Pro in 2012 (it was my wife's and her dad passed down a 13" early 2012 because he wanted a 15", she gave it to me because the 17" as too big for her) and $75 for the 16GB, so I have a $75 laptop that very well met my needs until the GPU died (taking out the DisplayPort in the process). I can still use it with Intel graphics, which limits me to Linux, as OS X and still-supported versions of Windows both ship with a driver for the dead GPU and both insist on initializing that GPU during boot which, of course, fails, halting the boot process.
So yes, it still works in the 16GB configuration, it's a great little Linux machine, and no, the RAM upgrade didn't affect the GPU (which has its own GDDR on-board), it's a known issue (with a recall and all) on that model and I was ready to upgrade my daily driver when it failed anyway so I never bothered getting it fixed.
IMO, Apple should take their current MacBook and turn it into the MacBook Air, the current retina MacBook Pro should become the MacBook (as its lack of upgradability makes it anything but "Pro"), bring back 15" and 17" models of the older unibody and put the same class of hardware (current CPUs, PCIe SSD, retina display) that the current retina models have in that older unibody case. If they keep the spinning disk as an option, allowing that space to be instead filled with additional battery, and keep the optical drive as an option, allowing that space to be instead filled up with another spinning disk or more battery, and they keep actual RAM sockets, well, then they'd be offering a pro machine. That should be the MacBook Pro. Well, almost; they'd also need to stick a better GPU in the thing than
why not just buy a machine with proper RAM right off the bat?
Let's look, first, at the last line of MacBook Pro to have user-serviceable RAM. It shipped with 8GB in its highest configuration, that was the most you could buy with it, period. Need more? Get fucked, Apply says you can only have 8GB. Though, if you had a brain, you could buy the 2GB model and a couple of 8GB SODIMMs and BAM 16GB, and it'd work (my 2011 17" MBP still does in that configuration).
No big deal, because you can upgrade it after purchase and get more than Apple would have been willing to sell you, right?
Now, let's hit fast-forward and jump to today. Apple sells systems with chipsets and CPUs capable of handling 32GB of RAM, there are 16GB SODIMMs on the market, so you can buy 32 GB of RAM for a laptop now, but the most they'll actually sell you is 16GB. Soldered on.
Why not buy a machine with the proper RAM right off the bat? Because, if I want a MacBook Pro, I simply can't, because Apple won't sell me one.
How do you move a water or sewer line without turning it off? And are you proposing linesmen put their lives at risk by moving live lines at ground level? Yes, they work on live high-tension wires all the time; from a helicopter and not grounded. Yes, moving these does necessarily mean turning them off first.
Irrelevant.
Howso? You're talking about making homes cheaper so poor people can afford them, you complain that parking requirement make homes more expensive by driving up building costs, why is it irrelevant if this also drives the costs up? Because it's what you think should happen? I see.
Information asymmetry is a market failure.
And allowing the sale of goods and property unfit for their intended purpose is also a market failure. You're proposing we legislate that market failure (or, rather, that we no longer legislate its prevention).
As requested [tandfonline.com ($41 PDF download)].
Got one that doesn't cost an arm and a leg to read? A source is no good if it won't be looked at; and I can tell you, this one won't be. Given that you likely knew I would never pay to view it, I'm just going to assume it says nothing at all like what I claim; I'm also going to assume you didn't pay for, or read it, either.
As requested, 2 required parking spaces per single-family home [tempe.gov].
Yup, two spaces, no garage requirement. A 20ft by 6ft driveway meets that requirement and then some. Your original argument about legislated two-car garages has still not been supported.
That won't happen, because developers don't build neighborhoods for what poor people want.
You're arguing that this is due to zoning laws, though. You still have failed to support that position. You're right, though, that builders won't build for the poor; but, again, that's nothing to do with the law, nor with discrimination. They simply want to make a profit for their hard work. And if you want to argue that building a hous isn't hard, poor people should be able to buy land and build their own house, right? No? Because that would be too hard? Exactly, and that's why the builder deserves a profit on their labor.
That won't happen, because how can everyone who lives there all have cars if there's no place to park them all?
That was the point I was making; and the end result is a poor neighborhood, as only people too poor to afford cars would live there. I thought you were trying to eliminate poor neighborhoods, no?
If those spaces go empty because nobody is paying to park there, then the price is way too far above market equilibrium. The price should be only slightly above market equilibrium at most, so that the parking spaces are only mostly full and nobody who is willing to pay is ever turned away because the spaces are all taken.
Right, $1.50 per 15min is not an unheard-of rate in SF and those spaces are usually taken by patrons of local businesses and people parking to go to work; where to residents park?
Look, I get what you're after and it's a noble cause, I just think you're going about it the wrong way. Any solution you've raised here that could possibly be workable would lead to the cration of another poor neighborhood, though, not the integration of the classes, which is what you claimed you were after. I think, really, what you want (though you don't realize it) is for conditoins in poor neighborhoods to be improved; for the government to step in and actually provide proper police and fire services in those areas, to fund the schools so those children can be educated and break out of the poorness cycle. I get it, and I support that. That's why I'm shooting down your misguided ideas, as they won't achieve the goals you think they will.
That's not a zoning issue, that's a right-of-way issue.
Right of way is codified into zoning laws in most places, if not everywhere that has a codified right of way. that makes it a zoning issue.
why can't those utility lines and pipes be relocated at the developer's expense?
Because that would mean turning off power, water, sewer, phone, and cable services to a large number of people pretty much on a daily basis so one developer can build a building and profit from its sale or rental. Also, because (much like underground parking) it would drive up the price of rent to where the people you are concerned about could not afford it. That's ignoring the fact that there probably isn't anywhere else to run them; if the building is being build in the right of way, that leaves nowhere for those lines to go. Also, It's illegal for anyone but the utility who owns the lines to touch them, because, well, they're the utility's property; just like it's illegal for me to pay to have your car towed (relocated) if I want to park in your spot... even if the towing is at my expense. So, we have a non-solution that, even if it were a solution, wouldn't solve the problem for the people you're trying to pretend to care about (if you truly cared you'd take the time to think of these things before spouting off) because, even if it could be done, "at the developer's expense" means a more expensive build that the developer isn't gonna eat, thus higher rent or sale price the poor can't afford.
So instead of solving the problem by requiring disclosure, you prefer to solve the problem by prohibiting the sale.
Yes, because people are intrinsically trusting and many don't care about disclosures even when the disclosure reveals a real and deadly risk to their health and well-being (see: smoking). People prefer to take the attitude "they wouldn't be allowed to sell it if it wasn't safe" and ignore the disclosure stating otherwise.
Whenever a market failure arises, is eliminating the market always the best solution?
It's not a market failure, it's a public health and safety issue. Yes, when something can not be used (or a place can not be occupied) in a safe manner, it should be removed from the market. Period.
Yes, zoning laws are having a similar effect today.
There were zoning laws in the 1960's as well, they're not something new that popped up to replace voter testing laws and they weren't viewed as a problem back then or they'd have been dealt with in the same way as voter testing laws by now. Also, I was asking for a citation; clearly, you believe your words to be true, but I'm asking you to prove it.
So governments should force developers to build properties that have the widest appeal?
I didn't say that, and neither did your source. Your source was about a zoning law in a crowded city, which applied specifically to multi-unit dwellings (read: apartments), not houses. Show me a law requiring a two car garage at the end of anyone's driveway, then we'll talk.
Where land is free and untaxed and the driveway is a dirt path, the driveway won't add anything to the cost of the house. But I don't think such a place exists.
You're right that land will never be free or untaxed, but there are a lot of places where driveways are dirt paths. Make the house a little smaller and BAM, condition met. If they're okay in a 300sq-ft apartment, why do they need a house that's bigger? But that's ignoring the fact that the laws you refer to don't apply to single family homes. To elaborate, the government should not (and does not) force builders to build to the widest appeal; the fact that they actually want to sell what they build and do so for a profit does a good enough job of that. You're also ignoring that
So it's illegal because it's impossible? Should the government prohibit anything that's impossible? That could lead to some very amusing laws!
Oh, no, it's very possible to build in a utility right of way, it just makes accessing the utility lines and pipes below the building impossible, which is why it's illegal to build in those rights-of-way.
So it's illegal because nobody would want to build a house there?
No, it's illegal because the dangers may not be completely obvious to the poor (both financially poor and deserving of sympathy for having been tricked into buying that house) people who buy it. Plenty of people would love to build houses in those areas, sell them for cheap, then reclaim the property when an industrial accident wipes out the house and the poor sap who bought it quits paying. Clearly you didn't consider this, so you are actually oen of the people that law is meant to protect; you're welcome.
No, I'm saying the perception of that correlation led to us passing discriminatory laws, just as the perception of certain grammatical errors led to creating literary tests that prevented people of certain ethnic races from voting
In the 1960's. Did you even read your source? Got anything indicating that's happened in the last 45 years? No? Okay, then, looks like progress has been made.
Exactly, and zoning laws artificially raise the price of housing. For example, why does a poor family who doesn't own a car need a 2-car garage?
They don't, but someone who does will be more than happy that such a home was built for them. Or are you insinuating that people who can afford things shouldn't have them because others can't?
Yet zoning laws say that for every 'x' rooms, you need 'y' number of off-street parking spaces
And those spaces can be in the driveway.
and this prices poor families out of middle-class neighborhoods.
Ah, I see, you're talking about apartments in crowded cities where those laws make sense (as street parking is woefully inadequate in a building with 450 apartments and only a dozen street parking spots in front of it), not houses with driveways to provide off-street parking. Maybe you should have said that, then.
You have no leg to stand on, as evident by the fact that the best source you could find is about something completely different than what you were talking about. Have you ever tried to park on the street in a crowded city, like the one your source is talking about? If there was no under-building parking for those apartments, people who do have cars wouldn't rent them (because they'd have nowhere to park), leaving the poor who don't have cars and simply creating another poor neighborhood. Those laws aren't discriminating against the poor, they're preventing (and in a lot of cases trying to fix existing) parking issues in already over-crowded cities.
But go ahead and think everything is about keeping you down, brotha'. Clearly, nothing anyone with skin a different color than yours, or in a different financial class than you, can say will convince you they're not racist or classist. That's a very racist and classist position you're taking, there, and a bit paranoid. Just keep blaming "the man" for beign racist and classist without consideration for the real reason for these laws.
Nah, nobody in that community was rich by any standard except the one that got people to start moving out; and she was white.
It wasn't just me who didn't hate, or even have issues with, the black families in the community, we all got along. Before my wife and I lived there, my wife's filipino friend and her samoan husband lived there; my wife was actually living there with her friend when I met her (before her friend was married, of course) and nobody had any problems with them, either.
Also, I never claimed racism doesn't exist, so you can fuck right off with that. Why can't you just let progress happen instead of opening your mouth and giving the bigots another data-point to throw out like "look, we tried to be tolerant but it keeps getting thrown back in our faces"? Yes, those people exist, stop giving them ammunition to use against you like a dumbshit.
There's a middle ground between the suburbs and the country, as well, and that's where I find that I'm the happiest. Knowing that I can drive 5 minuted and get to civilization and do my shopping, but that there's no real source of noise or commotion nearby, well, that's just peachy. The place I'm in now is pretty close to that; it's an apartment complex neighboring a small subdivision. On the other side of the subdivision is a small commercial zone, just a few restaurants and a couple gas stations, and on ramps to two major freeways. Surrounding all of that, for miles, is farmland. I'd say it was a suburb, but... a suburb of what? There's no city nearby. But I can hop on the freeway and be in a city in 5-10min depending on traffic.
Oh, and it's cheap! About half what I was paying to rent a similarly-sized condo in an only slightly less rural area. And the people seem friendlier, to boot, so no complaints there.
Thanks to zoning laws, in suburban neighborhoods, it's generally illegal to tear down a house and replace it with cheap apartments
It's generally illegal to tear down a house (purely residential) and replace it with (commercial-residential) apartments, yes. Also, quite often, the reason it's illegal is less to do with zoning laws (commercial-residential is still residential, thus allowed in a residential zone) and more to do with maintaining property borders and right of way for utilities and infrastructure; the apartment building simply won't fit on the plot while allowing for this so, of course, it is not allowed.
or to convert a garage into a granny flat
I never understood that, personally. If it's no longer being used to house a vehicle, it should be perfectly fine. That said, I guess it's a good thing the article you linked to was about how this practice is becoming more popular and how many states are rewriting zoning laws to make it legal, though that kind of waters down your point, so I guess not good for you.
Another tragedy is that it's often illegal to build housing in industrial zones where land is cheap and close to jobs.
It's illegal to build housing in high-pollution areas with an elevated danger of catastrophe that would wipe out those homes, potentially killing the occupants? You don't say. Residential land close to jobs is anything but cheap; and you can bet your ass a residential building on industrial land would be anything but cheap for the same reason it costs 3x as much to rent an apartment in San Francisco than it does 30min away. As you allude to, it's close to jobs.
So with so much resistance to economic and racial integration codified in our laws
And so much racism in that remark... Seriously, where is the codified resistance to racial integration? Let's just assume there is codified resistance to economic integration, we'll let that be a given for the purpose of this question, are you saying there's a necessary correlation between economic status and race? Black people must be poor? Really? So there's a law somewhere saying that only white people can live in a given neighborhood, or that you must live in the ghetto if you're black? Well, I know a lot of people in violation, then. That's not to say the existing laws aren't enforced unevenly; it wouldn't surprise me to actually see statistical proof that they are (and I haven't seen that yet), but that's racist law-enforcement, not racist law.
Moving on, I don't believe there's any resistance to economic integration codified in any law anywhere, either. Sure, poor people don't live near rich people, but that's because they can't afford the prices; rich people would be just as happy if they could, it would mean they were also paying less, thereby making them richer! If a poor person wins the lottery, they don't suddenly become a better or worse person; they're still the same person, just now they can afford to move to a more expensive neighborhood. The people in that neighborhood won't have a problem with that, and neither would the law.
We only need more woman and minorities in tech if they want to be here. Or are you implying we should enslave enough black people to raise their presence from 3% to 14%? Or force women to sit in front of a computer the way 1950's housewives were forced into the kitchen until women make up an additional 18% of the tech workforce?
That just seems wrong to me.
Show me reports of minorities and women trying to work in tech and not being able to find jobs, enough of them to make up for the disparity; then I'll agree we need to hire more of them. Until then, I'll go on assuming that those who want to work in this field do work in this field, and I'll be fine with that as I'm, personally, against forcing people into positions.
Ah, now that I see where you were going with it, I did get a chuckle out of it. I don't know whether to blame my missing the joke on your execution or my migraine.
What really kills me about "participation trophies", dear special snowflakes, is that snowflakes are unique, unlike that trophy that was handed out to everyone in your entire class.
Class of 2000. Threw out every participation trophy I was "awarded" and only kept the ones I earned. Most of my generation is braindead and most of the younger generations are worse, IMO, and I'm pretty sure the "you're special no matter what" message is a huge contributing factor.
Middle- and upper-class members of the ethnic majority call it maintaining community "character" but that's just a euphemism for keeping the poor and minorities away.
i don't know about that. The last place I lived, I had a black family on one side of me and a mixed couple on the other. Both were of upstanding moral character, though neither were poor but, then, that's a factor of the cost of housing in that particular development. In fact, all of my neighbors were particularly "well-charactered" (to coin a term) with one exception, a somewhat wealthy (relative to the majority of that neighborhood) white divorcee who has no sense of respect for her neighbors and is constantly throwing loud parties and making noise at all hours of the day and night. We moved out shortly after, the mixed couple was talking about doing the same (they started looking for a place shortly after we told them we were moving), and the black family on the other side of me is far enough from her so as not to be impacted, so they're staying put.
Say what you will, but it has absolutely nothing to do with race or financial status. Or zoning laws, for that matter. Yes, poor people live in less desirable locations, I'm not denying that and anyone would be a fool to do so, but let's look at the real cause: cost. If landlords could charge more rent or property owners could sell for more in undesirable locations, they would and poor people would be screwed; they can charge more when you get out of the industrial district and get away from the landfill and sewage treatment plant, so they do. That holds until you get into the really, truly, rural areas, where the usefulness of the land factors more into its value. You can get some really nice land and build on it for cheap if you don't mind being an hour away from the nearest anything and don't intend to farm; the moment you decide you decide you want to grow crops, you need flatter land with a higher water table (easier access to larger quantities of water) and it starts getting expensive.
To put it another way, factories don't go up because poor people live nearby, poor people move near factories because that's what they can afford; leaving race out of it altogether.
That's why I assumed you didn't intend to condescend. You and I might not always agree on things, but I've never seen you be uncivil. And, if there was a joke in there somewhere, I completely missed it; now I'm curious what the joke was.
Maybe, if those men aren't "performing", the woman should better her situation by finding a more compatible mate, rather than suffering and making the man suffer. What's the definition of "whore" again? Someone who trades sex for profit? Right.
Sad Puppies is not only very much an actively aggressive movement, they're also not forced to read the books they're rallying against. Completely unrelated to the topic at hand, but nice bait.
The principle behind alimony is entirely fair, and it's dinengenuous to present it as some sort of anti-male punishment.
Yes, the principle behind it is entirely fair and I never claimed otherwise. If I'm married to a woman and I simply decide I don't want to be with her anymore, but I've gotten her accustomed to a certain lifestyle, it's only fair that I (for a short time) continue to provide that lifestyle, to a degree. However, if she's being a bitch and using sex (or anything else, for that matter) as a weapon, the very same kinds of activities it's apparently ok for women to call oppression when it's a man doing it, well, that's abuse and no alimony for that bitch. Unfortunately, the courts quite often don't recognize abuse when the victim is male, so yes, at that point, it becomes punitive; either put up with the abuse or pay your oppressor for the privilege of no longer being oppressed. Except that, well, you're still being oppressed by having to pay. But, again, that viewpoint is limited to those specific situations; I wasn't talking about alimony in all cases, I was talking about alimony in these cases and, yes, it is wrong.
Which question are you countering?
You asked two, I directly answered one. I'm sure you can figure it out.
And the answer is that this entire article and topic is rather silly, but it's revealed that some people here are in or have expectations of really dysfunctional relationships, that they really ought to fix.
Agreed.
And, as for my supposed strawman, it's simply not. If it were, you'd have actually burned it down rather than dismissing it. Here's the thing: that exact argument is stated time and again by supposed women's rights activists. And you know what? It's completely fucking false; I think that's why you dismissed it and, if so, then at least we're on the same page. Men and women are, and should be, equals; of course, that means society accepting that some women abuse men just as some men abuse women, so those men can have the same protections afforded to women. You know, equality. Hell, I couldn't even get a restraining order against my ex when she was making threats against me and my family and her own mother gave a statement affirming that I was an abuse victim because the courts do not generally recognize that men can even be in that position. But yes, equality.
So you're saying that all men do this? Is that an absolute? Because here I am, a man, and I don't do those things. In fact, other men I know don't do those things. I know a lot of women who do, though, and I'm sure there are men who do, because, well, it's human nature. Some of us are civilized enough to keep our negativity to ourselves, and to our small groups; I dare say most of us are, regardless of gender. There is a small minority of both genders who voice their opinion openly to the widest possible audience and degrade anything and everything they do not like; do not confuse the males who do this with men (they're boys, at best) and I won't confuse the females who do this with women (as they're girls, at best).
So why are you getting defensive?
You as why, I ask where. Perhaps, in this post, because I am being attacked.
Where is this man's (I'm making an assumption, my apologies if that assumption is incorrect) +5, Insightful? Not only did he absolutely nail the point I was making, he succinctly pointed out several root causes of these types of issues.
Add in alimony, and some women being sly enough to not play those kind of games until they've secured it, and you've got a recipe for oppression. And no, a man should not be oppressed because other men have, themselves, been oppressors.
This. One of our first dates (my wife and I) was a Giants game. She won tickets at work (ah, work, something she no longer has to -- or does -- do) and wanted to go so we could spend time together. I have to say, neither of us were really into it, but that was kind of the point: neither of us felt bad ignoring the game going on in front of us, we simply enjoyed each others' company. Of course, we've never gone to another game since then because it really didn't add anything to the experience (the experience being having spent time together), but that's not the point. We mutually agreed to do something neither of us really wanted to do in order to spend time together.
And therein lies the problem: watching a TV show only one person is interested in is not a mutual experience, either mutual suffering or mutual enjoyment. It does not lend itself to bonding, as the partner who is interested in the show is going to get annoyed when the partner who isn't tries to talk to them during it, and they're not going to talk about the show after because one of them wasn't paying attention to it in the first place. A show both are interested in? Sure, they don't talk during, but they'll talk after. A show neither is interested in? Background noise to fill silences (periods of thought) in a thoughtful conversation.
I have to say, some of the best bonding moments for my wife and I have been things that absolutely sucked for both of us. Thing where we've looked at each other afterward and said, in unison "there is no way in hell we're ever fucking doing that again". I dare say, if a couple never has such an experience, they're stuck in a rut and will get tired of each other sooner or later. But, if experiences one partner enjoys and the other does not are a common theme, well, that's a sign they're not a match. A healthy couple doesn't have to like and dislike all of the same things but, at some point, they should be able to tell beforehand whether their partner will feel the same way they do about something, and they should (both) be mature enough to not subject their partner to those things; of course, they should also both be secure enough to trust their partner going and doing those things alone or with friends, no matter who those friends are.
I feel sorry for the men writing these reviews; they're probably faced with a decision between having sex used as a weapon or paying alimony for the foreseeable future. And it's likely not something they could have seen coming; if a woman doesn't start playing those games until after marriage, you can't simply not marry her because of the games.
But yeah, back to sports... If I want to watch a bunch of sweaty men rubbing on each other, I live 20 minutes from San Francisco.
Slashdot Mirror
That bluetooth headset isn't a pure resistive load, nor as heavy a load as the heating element in an e-cig. That said, I have a couple Firefly vaporizers and a Firefly 2, not the little cig-shaped and not used for nicotine; more medicinal than that. They're wonderful little devices, well built, but I also take care not to overwork the lithium bombs they contain, given the high-wattage load they power and the proximity to my face while they're powering said load. No need to condescend the bluetooth headset user, as even someone who is aware of the dangers will realize there really isn't any danger in that little headset. Perfectly acceptable to condescend to an e-cig user completely unaware of the (somewhat obvious) dangers of those devices, though; and I'd expect to be talked down to as an idiot if I held power on one of my Firefly vapes with a full battery, because the dangers are clear: arc flash from a failed heating element, explosion or fire from an overheated (overworked) battery, or both.
And yes, using the cheapest chinese shit batteries (with "fire" in the name, no less) or cells from a damaged laptop or tool pack is a bad choice.
I dunno man, the PC I bought in November (which I am currently typing this on) outspecs the highest-end MacBook Pro in every respect, including size, weight, and build quality, and cost me half as much (from memory: the highest-end configuration rMBP is about $3200 while I paid $1600) so Apple could well be doing a fair bit more for the money. It's also worth noting that this PC is a model that is roughly 2mo older than the 2013 (bought in early 2014) rMBP it works alongside, so Apple's had plenty of time to catch up to what was a mid-high-end PH laptop 3 years ago (almost to the day). Mind you, I bought the laptop (new in box, none of this open box or refurb shit) on an extreme sale and it should have cost me another $500 but that still makes it $1100 cheaper than a 3-year-newer and less capable machine.
Oh and, on top of being about 1mm thinner than the rMBP, I have actual RAM slots on this PC and dual m.2 SSDs. Oh, and better cooling. My rMBP kicks its fans up a LOT... and throttles shortly after; not sure how you're getting yours to run at turbo speeds, but congratulations, you got a good one. I have to actually constrict the airflow to the PC under heavy load to get it to throttle at all. Under moderate load it runs 10-15C cooler than the rMBP at idle. Oh, and it's a gaming rig, not even intended for professional use in any way, shape, or form; but it fits the bill better in every regard.
Perhaps that's why we disagree: you're not looking from the perspective of someone who has these two machines sitting side-by-side on the same desk, having torn both of them down to the frame and reassembled them just for kicks. My only gripe with the PC is, interestingly, also one of my gripes with the rMBP: it doesn't run Snow Leopard. I've liked OS X less and less with each release since SL and Adobe doesn't develop their tools for Linux so... Hi there, Windows, long time no see.
And I'm gonna guess I'm not so anti-Apple given that my household contains a 17" MBP, a 13" MBP, a 15" rMBP, a 1st gen iPad (still working), an iPad Air, iPad Air2, iPad Pro 9.7",an iPhone 6s Plus, and an Apple TV. You can blame my wife for the 13", the Air2, and the iPhone; the rest are mine (though the 1st gen iPad was hers and she wanted to toss it).
I get why RAM is soldered on in a consumer laptop, as well, and we agree on the reasoning. Once you start calling something "Pro", you need to stop treating it like a typical consumer good and make sure it keeps as much of its professional appeal as possible; for professional equipment that means maintainability and upgradability. Of course, that also means recognizing the difference between a "professional" user and a professional user; the former needs Word, Excel, and Outlook and a lightweight super portable machine is probably perfect for them, they should get a MacBook "Pro" (but Apple doesn't sell a machine with that label -- just one that deserves it). The latter, on the other hand, probably has a big beefy desktop workstation and generally doesn't move their laptop workstation around much (so weight and size are less of an issue) and, when they do need to work from a remote location, they need it to have as much beef behind it as their desktop, or at least as close as possible. That's what a professional user needs; not thin and light, but beefy and maintainable. Of course, those same professional users will probably also want something light and portable for general, off-hours, use. Apple could sell two laptops to these people, rather than zero, if they'd just figure that out.
As for whether or not 32GB of RAM is necessary in a laptop? Nah, I don't think it's necessary for even the most demanding single-host activities. If I need to test something on Windows, Linux, and OS X without closing my dev tools or rebooting a bunch of times, I can carry three laptops with me. Or, I can carry one slightly heavier laptop with 32GB of RAM and run Windows and Linux in VMs with 8GB each. Suddenly, that 1/4" of thickness doesn't seem like such a tradeoff, it's sure a hell of a lot thinner than two additional laptops, so if Apple doesn't want to sell that configuration, they could still at least sell a laptop with RAM slots and let the end user sort it out.
I think 4GB SODIMMs were the largest ones available when your 2011 MBP was introduced
Well, it was 2012 when I did the upgrade, so that may be true.
and that's why Apple said the maximum amount of RAM was 8GB. Larger modules came later.
In 2011, possibly. However, I said:
Let's look, first, at the last line of MacBook Pro to have user-serviceable RAM.
That is, not my 2011, which I was simply mentioning illustratively, but the current offering. Which still sells with a max of 8GB of RAM because, well, it hasn't seen a refresh since 2013. Incidentally, it only supports 16GB for the same reason; while Apple still claims it only supports up to 8GB (because that's how they sell it).
So, then, even if it is true that Apple claimed the 2011 MacBook Pro only supported8GB of RAM because that is all you could actually buy at the time, what's their excuse in 2016? Or even 2012?
Also, when you upgrade older systems and want to go above the original RAM maximum, you have to be careful about which modules you get. I'm typing this on an old Lenovo x200 that I recently bought used ($20!). When I went to upgrade it from the 2GB it came with to 8GB (which works although the original spec maximum was 4GB), the first set of modules I received didn't work. You have to use low-density modules (8 chips on each side), not higher density ones (4 chips on each side or 8 on just one side), because they're the only 4GB modules that the motherboard will recognize.
You can look up the chipset and CPU in your system to see what they support, it's really not rocket science. That said, I fail to see how that is relevant here.
Yes, I spend $50 to upgrade the memory on a $20 laptop. The modules that were incompatible would have only been $30. But all in all that means that I have a $70 laptop that suits my needs and has a wonderful keyboard. I'll take that.
Indeed, and that was exactly my point. As a "professional" machine, it needs to be user-upgradable; anything less is "prosumer" at best.
I paid $0 for the 2011 MacBook Pro in 2012 (it was my wife's and her dad passed down a 13" early 2012 because he wanted a 15", she gave it to me because the 17" as too big for her) and $75 for the 16GB, so I have a $75 laptop that very well met my needs until the GPU died (taking out the DisplayPort in the process). I can still use it with Intel graphics, which limits me to Linux, as OS X and still-supported versions of Windows both ship with a driver for the dead GPU and both insist on initializing that GPU during boot which, of course, fails, halting the boot process.
So yes, it still works in the 16GB configuration, it's a great little Linux machine, and no, the RAM upgrade didn't affect the GPU (which has its own GDDR on-board), it's a known issue (with a recall and all) on that model and I was ready to upgrade my daily driver when it failed anyway so I never bothered getting it fixed.
IMO, Apple should take their current MacBook and turn it into the MacBook Air, the current retina MacBook Pro should become the MacBook (as its lack of upgradability makes it anything but "Pro"), bring back 15" and 17" models of the older unibody and put the same class of hardware (current CPUs, PCIe SSD, retina display) that the current retina models have in that older unibody case. If they keep the spinning disk as an option, allowing that space to be instead filled with additional battery, and keep the optical drive as an option, allowing that space to be instead filled up with another spinning disk or more battery, and they keep actual RAM sockets, well, then they'd be offering a pro machine. That should be the MacBook Pro. Well, almost; they'd also need to stick a better GPU in the thing than
why not just buy a machine with proper RAM right off the bat?
Let's look, first, at the last line of MacBook Pro to have user-serviceable RAM. It shipped with 8GB in its highest configuration, that was the most you could buy with it, period. Need more? Get fucked, Apply says you can only have 8GB. Though, if you had a brain, you could buy the 2GB model and a couple of 8GB SODIMMs and BAM 16GB, and it'd work (my 2011 17" MBP still does in that configuration).
No big deal, because you can upgrade it after purchase and get more than Apple would have been willing to sell you, right?
Now, let's hit fast-forward and jump to today. Apple sells systems with chipsets and CPUs capable of handling 32GB of RAM, there are 16GB SODIMMs on the market, so you can buy 32 GB of RAM for a laptop now, but the most they'll actually sell you is 16GB. Soldered on.
Why not buy a machine with the proper RAM right off the bat? Because, if I want a MacBook Pro, I simply can't, because Apple won't sell me one.
As I said, developers won't let that happen because the profit motive prevents them from building for the poor.
I think you might want to either consider my earlier argument relevant, or your own argument irrelevant because, as you just said said:
it's a result of natural market forces, not government meddling.
Good day, sir.
No, it wouldn't.
How do you move a water or sewer line without turning it off? And are you proposing linesmen put their lives at risk by moving live lines at ground level? Yes, they work on live high-tension wires all the time; from a helicopter and not grounded. Yes, moving these does necessarily mean turning them off first.
Irrelevant.
Howso? You're talking about making homes cheaper so poor people can afford them, you complain that parking requirement make homes more expensive by driving up building costs, why is it irrelevant if this also drives the costs up? Because it's what you think should happen? I see.
Information asymmetry is a market failure.
And allowing the sale of goods and property unfit for their intended purpose is also a market failure. You're proposing we legislate that market failure (or, rather, that we no longer legislate its prevention).
As requested [tandfonline.com ($41 PDF download)].
Got one that doesn't cost an arm and a leg to read? A source is no good if it won't be looked at; and I can tell you, this one won't be. Given that you likely knew I would never pay to view it, I'm just going to assume it says nothing at all like what I claim; I'm also going to assume you didn't pay for, or read it, either.
As requested, 2 required parking spaces per single-family home [tempe.gov].
Yup, two spaces, no garage requirement. A 20ft by 6ft driveway meets that requirement and then some. Your original argument about legislated two-car garages has still not been supported.
That won't happen, because developers don't build neighborhoods for what poor people want.
You're arguing that this is due to zoning laws, though. You still have failed to support that position. You're right, though, that builders won't build for the poor; but, again, that's nothing to do with the law, nor with discrimination. They simply want to make a profit for their hard work. And if you want to argue that building a hous isn't hard, poor people should be able to buy land and build their own house, right? No? Because that would be too hard? Exactly, and that's why the builder deserves a profit on their labor.
That won't happen, because how can everyone who lives there all have cars if there's no place to park them all?
That was the point I was making; and the end result is a poor neighborhood, as only people too poor to afford cars would live there. I thought you were trying to eliminate poor neighborhoods, no?
If those spaces go empty because nobody is paying to park there, then the price is way too far above market equilibrium. The price should be only slightly above market equilibrium at most, so that the parking spaces are only mostly full and nobody who is willing to pay is ever turned away because the spaces are all taken.
Right, $1.50 per 15min is not an unheard-of rate in SF and those spaces are usually taken by patrons of local businesses and people parking to go to work; where to residents park?
Look, I get what you're after and it's a noble cause, I just think you're going about it the wrong way. Any solution you've raised here that could possibly be workable would lead to the cration of another poor neighborhood, though, not the integration of the classes, which is what you claimed you were after. I think, really, what you want (though you don't realize it) is for conditoins in poor neighborhoods to be improved; for the government to step in and actually provide proper police and fire services in those areas, to fund the schools so those children can be educated and break out of the poorness cycle. I get it, and I support that. That's why I'm shooting down your misguided ideas, as they won't achieve the goals you think they will.
Ask your married friends, they'll tell ya. I got lucky and don't have to deal with that crap from my wife, but a lot of married men do.
Aww crap, forgot to close those links. Oh well, doesn't take away from my point.
That's not a zoning issue, that's a right-of-way issue.
Right of way is codified into zoning laws in most places, if not everywhere that has a codified right of way. that makes it a zoning issue.
why can't those utility lines and pipes be relocated at the developer's expense?
Because that would mean turning off power, water, sewer, phone, and cable services to a large number of people pretty much on a daily basis so one developer can build a building and profit from its sale or rental. Also, because (much like underground parking) it would drive up the price of rent to where the people you are concerned about could not afford it. That's ignoring the fact that there probably isn't anywhere else to run them; if the building is being build in the right of way, that leaves nowhere for those lines to go. Also, It's illegal for anyone but the utility who owns the lines to touch them, because, well, they're the utility's property; just like it's illegal for me to pay to have your car towed (relocated) if I want to park in your spot... even if the towing is at my expense. So, we have a non-solution that, even if it were a solution, wouldn't solve the problem for the people you're trying to pretend to care about (if you truly cared you'd take the time to think of these things before spouting off) because, even if it could be done, "at the developer's expense" means a more expensive build that the developer isn't gonna eat, thus higher rent or sale price the poor can't afford.
So instead of solving the problem by requiring disclosure, you prefer to solve the problem by prohibiting the sale.
Yes, because people are intrinsically trusting and many don't care about disclosures even when the disclosure reveals a real and deadly risk to their health and well-being (see: smoking). People prefer to take the attitude "they wouldn't be allowed to sell it if it wasn't safe" and ignore the disclosure stating otherwise.
Whenever a market failure arises, is eliminating the market always the best solution?
It's not a market failure, it's a public health and safety issue. Yes, when something can not be used (or a place can not be occupied) in a safe manner, it should be removed from the market. Period.
Yes, zoning laws are having a similar effect today.
There were zoning laws in the 1960's as well, they're not something new that popped up to replace voter testing laws and they weren't viewed as a problem back then or they'd have been dealt with in the same way as voter testing laws by now. Also, I was asking for a citation; clearly, you believe your words to be true, but I'm asking you to prove it.
So governments should force developers to build properties that have the widest appeal?
I didn't say that, and neither did your source. Your source was about a zoning law in a crowded city, which applied specifically to multi-unit dwellings (read: apartments), not houses. Show me a law requiring a two car garage at the end of anyone's driveway, then we'll talk.
Where land is free and untaxed and the driveway is a dirt path, the driveway won't add anything to the cost of the house. But I don't think such a place exists.
You're right that land will never be free or untaxed, but there are a lot of places where driveways are dirt paths. Make the house a little smaller and BAM, condition met. If they're okay in a 300sq-ft apartment, why do they need a house that's bigger? But that's ignoring the fact that the laws you refer to don't apply to single family homes. To elaborate, the government should not (and does not) force builders to build to the widest appeal; the fact that they actually want to sell what they build and do so for a profit does a good enough job of that. You're also ignoring that
So it's illegal because it's impossible? Should the government prohibit anything that's impossible? That could lead to some very amusing laws!
Oh, no, it's very possible to build in a utility right of way, it just makes accessing the utility lines and pipes below the building impossible, which is why it's illegal to build in those rights-of-way.
So it's illegal because nobody would want to build a house there?
No, it's illegal because the dangers may not be completely obvious to the poor (both financially poor and deserving of sympathy for having been tricked into buying that house) people who buy it. Plenty of people would love to build houses in those areas, sell them for cheap, then reclaim the property when an industrial accident wipes out the house and the poor sap who bought it quits paying. Clearly you didn't consider this, so you are actually oen of the people that law is meant to protect; you're welcome.
No, I'm saying the perception of that correlation led to us passing discriminatory laws, just as the perception of certain grammatical errors led to creating literary tests that prevented people of certain ethnic races from voting
In the 1960's. Did you even read your source? Got anything indicating that's happened in the last 45 years? No? Okay, then, looks like progress has been made.
Exactly, and zoning laws artificially raise the price of housing. For example, why does a poor family who doesn't own a car need a 2-car garage?
They don't, but someone who does will be more than happy that such a home was built for them. Or are you insinuating that people who can afford things shouldn't have them because others can't?
Yet zoning laws say that for every 'x' rooms, you need 'y' number of off-street parking spaces
And those spaces can be in the driveway.
and this prices poor families out of middle-class neighborhoods.
Ah, I see, you're talking about apartments in crowded cities where those laws make sense (as street parking is woefully inadequate in a building with 450 apartments and only a dozen street parking spots in front of it), not houses with driveways to provide off-street parking. Maybe you should have said that, then.
You have no leg to stand on, as evident by the fact that the best source you could find is about something completely different than what you were talking about. Have you ever tried to park on the street in a crowded city, like the one your source is talking about? If there was no under-building parking for those apartments, people who do have cars wouldn't rent them (because they'd have nowhere to park), leaving the poor who don't have cars and simply creating another poor neighborhood. Those laws aren't discriminating against the poor, they're preventing (and in a lot of cases trying to fix existing) parking issues in already over-crowded cities.
But go ahead and think everything is about keeping you down, brotha'. Clearly, nothing anyone with skin a different color than yours, or in a different financial class than you, can say will convince you they're not racist or classist. That's a very racist and classist position you're taking, there, and a bit paranoid. Just keep blaming "the man" for beign racist and classist without consideration for the real reason for these laws.
Nah, nobody in that community was rich by any standard except the one that got people to start moving out; and she was white.
It wasn't just me who didn't hate, or even have issues with, the black families in the community, we all got along. Before my wife and I lived there, my wife's filipino friend and her samoan husband lived there; my wife was actually living there with her friend when I met her (before her friend was married, of course) and nobody had any problems with them, either.
Also, I never claimed racism doesn't exist, so you can fuck right off with that. Why can't you just let progress happen instead of opening your mouth and giving the bigots another data-point to throw out like "look, we tried to be tolerant but it keeps getting thrown back in our faces"? Yes, those people exist, stop giving them ammunition to use against you like a dumbshit.
Hahahahahaha... I have nothing to add here but... hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha I'm losing my breath laughing. I love it.
There's a middle ground between the suburbs and the country, as well, and that's where I find that I'm the happiest. Knowing that I can drive 5 minuted and get to civilization and do my shopping, but that there's no real source of noise or commotion nearby, well, that's just peachy. The place I'm in now is pretty close to that; it's an apartment complex neighboring a small subdivision. On the other side of the subdivision is a small commercial zone, just a few restaurants and a couple gas stations, and on ramps to two major freeways. Surrounding all of that, for miles, is farmland. I'd say it was a suburb, but... a suburb of what? There's no city nearby. But I can hop on the freeway and be in a city in 5-10min depending on traffic.
Oh, and it's cheap! About half what I was paying to rent a similarly-sized condo in an only slightly less rural area. And the people seem friendlier, to boot, so no complaints there.
Thanks to zoning laws, in suburban neighborhoods, it's generally illegal to tear down a house and replace it with cheap apartments
It's generally illegal to tear down a house (purely residential) and replace it with (commercial-residential) apartments, yes. Also, quite often, the reason it's illegal is less to do with zoning laws (commercial-residential is still residential, thus allowed in a residential zone) and more to do with maintaining property borders and right of way for utilities and infrastructure; the apartment building simply won't fit on the plot while allowing for this so, of course, it is not allowed.
or to convert a garage into a granny flat
I never understood that, personally. If it's no longer being used to house a vehicle, it should be perfectly fine. That said, I guess it's a good thing the article you linked to was about how this practice is becoming more popular and how many states are rewriting zoning laws to make it legal, though that kind of waters down your point, so I guess not good for you.
Another tragedy is that it's often illegal to build housing in industrial zones where land is cheap and close to jobs.
It's illegal to build housing in high-pollution areas with an elevated danger of catastrophe that would wipe out those homes, potentially killing the occupants? You don't say. Residential land close to jobs is anything but cheap; and you can bet your ass a residential building on industrial land would be anything but cheap for the same reason it costs 3x as much to rent an apartment in San Francisco than it does 30min away. As you allude to, it's close to jobs.
So with so much resistance to economic and racial integration codified in our laws
And so much racism in that remark... Seriously, where is the codified resistance to racial integration? Let's just assume there is codified resistance to economic integration, we'll let that be a given for the purpose of this question, are you saying there's a necessary correlation between economic status and race? Black people must be poor? Really? So there's a law somewhere saying that only white people can live in a given neighborhood, or that you must live in the ghetto if you're black? Well, I know a lot of people in violation, then. That's not to say the existing laws aren't enforced unevenly; it wouldn't surprise me to actually see statistical proof that they are (and I haven't seen that yet), but that's racist law-enforcement, not racist law.
Moving on, I don't believe there's any resistance to economic integration codified in any law anywhere, either. Sure, poor people don't live near rich people, but that's because they can't afford the prices; rich people would be just as happy if they could, it would mean they were also paying less, thereby making them richer! If a poor person wins the lottery, they don't suddenly become a better or worse person; they're still the same person, just now they can afford to move to a more expensive neighborhood. The people in that neighborhood won't have a problem with that, and neither would the law.
We only need more woman and minorities in tech if they want to be here. Or are you implying we should enslave enough black people to raise their presence from 3% to 14%? Or force women to sit in front of a computer the way 1950's housewives were forced into the kitchen until women make up an additional 18% of the tech workforce?
That just seems wrong to me.
Show me reports of minorities and women trying to work in tech and not being able to find jobs, enough of them to make up for the disparity; then I'll agree we need to hire more of them. Until then, I'll go on assuming that those who want to work in this field do work in this field, and I'll be fine with that as I'm, personally, against forcing people into positions.
Ah, now that I see where you were going with it, I did get a chuckle out of it. I don't know whether to blame my missing the joke on your execution or my migraine.
What really kills me about "participation trophies", dear special snowflakes, is that snowflakes are unique, unlike that trophy that was handed out to everyone in your entire class.
Class of 2000. Threw out every participation trophy I was "awarded" and only kept the ones I earned. Most of my generation is braindead and most of the younger generations are worse, IMO, and I'm pretty sure the "you're special no matter what" message is a huge contributing factor.
Middle- and upper-class members of the ethnic majority call it maintaining community "character" but that's just a euphemism for keeping the poor and minorities away.
i don't know about that. The last place I lived, I had a black family on one side of me and a mixed couple on the other. Both were of upstanding moral character, though neither were poor but, then, that's a factor of the cost of housing in that particular development. In fact, all of my neighbors were particularly "well-charactered" (to coin a term) with one exception, a somewhat wealthy (relative to the majority of that neighborhood) white divorcee who has no sense of respect for her neighbors and is constantly throwing loud parties and making noise at all hours of the day and night. We moved out shortly after, the mixed couple was talking about doing the same (they started looking for a place shortly after we told them we were moving), and the black family on the other side of me is far enough from her so as not to be impacted, so they're staying put.
Say what you will, but it has absolutely nothing to do with race or financial status. Or zoning laws, for that matter. Yes, poor people live in less desirable locations, I'm not denying that and anyone would be a fool to do so, but let's look at the real cause: cost. If landlords could charge more rent or property owners could sell for more in undesirable locations, they would and poor people would be screwed; they can charge more when you get out of the industrial district and get away from the landfill and sewage treatment plant, so they do. That holds until you get into the really, truly, rural areas, where the usefulness of the land factors more into its value. You can get some really nice land and build on it for cheap if you don't mind being an hour away from the nearest anything and don't intend to farm; the moment you decide you decide you want to grow crops, you need flatter land with a higher water table (easier access to larger quantities of water) and it starts getting expensive.
To put it another way, factories don't go up because poor people live nearby, poor people move near factories because that's what they can afford; leaving race out of it altogether.
That's why I assumed you didn't intend to condescend. You and I might not always agree on things, but I've never seen you be uncivil. And, if there was a joke in there somewhere, I completely missed it; now I'm curious what the joke was.
Maybe, if those men aren't "performing", the woman should better her situation by finding a more compatible mate, rather than suffering and making the man suffer. What's the definition of "whore" again? Someone who trades sex for profit? Right.
Again, I'm so glad I don't have that problem.
Sad Puppies is not only very much an actively aggressive movement, they're also not forced to read the books they're rallying against. Completely unrelated to the topic at hand, but nice bait.
The principle behind alimony is entirely fair, and it's dinengenuous to present it as some sort of anti-male punishment.
Yes, the principle behind it is entirely fair and I never claimed otherwise. If I'm married to a woman and I simply decide I don't want to be with her anymore, but I've gotten her accustomed to a certain lifestyle, it's only fair that I (for a short time) continue to provide that lifestyle, to a degree. However, if she's being a bitch and using sex (or anything else, for that matter) as a weapon, the very same kinds of activities it's apparently ok for women to call oppression when it's a man doing it, well, that's abuse and no alimony for that bitch. Unfortunately, the courts quite often don't recognize abuse when the victim is male, so yes, at that point, it becomes punitive; either put up with the abuse or pay your oppressor for the privilege of no longer being oppressed. Except that, well, you're still being oppressed by having to pay. But, again, that viewpoint is limited to those specific situations; I wasn't talking about alimony in all cases, I was talking about alimony in these cases and, yes, it is wrong.
Which question are you countering?
You asked two, I directly answered one. I'm sure you can figure it out.
And the answer is that this entire article and topic is rather silly, but it's revealed that some people here are in or have expectations of really dysfunctional relationships, that they really ought to fix.
Agreed.
And, as for my supposed strawman, it's simply not. If it were, you'd have actually burned it down rather than dismissing it. Here's the thing: that exact argument is stated time and again by supposed women's rights activists. And you know what? It's completely fucking false; I think that's why you dismissed it and, if so, then at least we're on the same page. Men and women are, and should be, equals; of course, that means society accepting that some women abuse men just as some men abuse women, so those men can have the same protections afforded to women. You know, equality. Hell, I couldn't even get a restraining order against my ex when she was making threats against me and my family and her own mother gave a statement affirming that I was an abuse victim because the courts do not generally recognize that men can even be in that position. But yes, equality.
So why are you getting defensive?
You as why, I ask where. Perhaps, in this post, because I am being attacked.
Where is this man's (I'm making an assumption, my apologies if that assumption is incorrect) +5, Insightful? Not only did he absolutely nail the point I was making, he succinctly pointed out several root causes of these types of issues.
Add in alimony, and some women being sly enough to not play those kind of games until they've secured it, and you've got a recipe for oppression. And no, a man should not be oppressed because other men have, themselves, been oppressors.
This. One of our first dates (my wife and I) was a Giants game. She won tickets at work (ah, work, something she no longer has to -- or does -- do) and wanted to go so we could spend time together. I have to say, neither of us were really into it, but that was kind of the point: neither of us felt bad ignoring the game going on in front of us, we simply enjoyed each others' company. Of course, we've never gone to another game since then because it really didn't add anything to the experience (the experience being having spent time together), but that's not the point. We mutually agreed to do something neither of us really wanted to do in order to spend time together.
And therein lies the problem: watching a TV show only one person is interested in is not a mutual experience, either mutual suffering or mutual enjoyment. It does not lend itself to bonding, as the partner who is interested in the show is going to get annoyed when the partner who isn't tries to talk to them during it, and they're not going to talk about the show after because one of them wasn't paying attention to it in the first place. A show both are interested in? Sure, they don't talk during, but they'll talk after. A show neither is interested in? Background noise to fill silences (periods of thought) in a thoughtful conversation.
I have to say, some of the best bonding moments for my wife and I have been things that absolutely sucked for both of us. Thing where we've looked at each other afterward and said, in unison "there is no way in hell we're ever fucking doing that again". I dare say, if a couple never has such an experience, they're stuck in a rut and will get tired of each other sooner or later. But, if experiences one partner enjoys and the other does not are a common theme, well, that's a sign they're not a match. A healthy couple doesn't have to like and dislike all of the same things but, at some point, they should be able to tell beforehand whether their partner will feel the same way they do about something, and they should (both) be mature enough to not subject their partner to those things; of course, they should also both be secure enough to trust their partner going and doing those things alone or with friends, no matter who those friends are.
I feel sorry for the men writing these reviews; they're probably faced with a decision between having sex used as a weapon or paying alimony for the foreseeable future. And it's likely not something they could have seen coming; if a woman doesn't start playing those games until after marriage, you can't simply not marry her because of the games.
But yeah, back to sports... If I want to watch a bunch of sweaty men rubbing on each other, I live 20 minutes from San Francisco.