Yeah! For crying out loud, why don't you just rearrange all the furniture in other people's houses and offices to accomodate your need to keep doing something when your battery runs low in such way that the outlet is never accross any space a person or pet might traverse! Jeez why didn't i think of that?
The red states are the relative beneficiaries of federal taxes. (Essentially the democrat coastal states subsidize the red states. They pay more in federal tax than they get back from the feds, while the red states get more then they pay.)
If there actually was a secession, I'd say the heartland has bigger economic concerns than the coastal states.
There is a large market for people who wanted a faster and better macbook air. The air was overdue for an update and apple hit the mark with it. The macbook pro 2016 is a great successor to the macbook air for people with a bunch of money who wanted a faster macbook pair.
The "problem" is that this left a complete vacuum in the product line for people who actually wanted a macbook pro.
To make a car analogy,... if Ford releases a sexy new F-150... exept it's a car, and it's basically just a nicer faster Mustang.... then it could sell really well to people who own Mustangs and wanted something faster and better. That doesn't make it a bad product, and it'll sell well etc.
But for people who were buying F-150s because they needed a pickup truck, well their left going WTF. Especially, because, to make the anology complete the F150 in this scenario happens to be the ONLY truck ford made. So its not like truck customers could move into the F250 or something. The F150 is now a car. If you needed a truck... well fuck you.
And THAT is the new macbook "pro"... its a fine laptop on its own, its a nice upgrade from the macbook air... but its a useless joke if you are looking for a pro laptop.
Why? It is not illegal to lie in most other circumstances, what's so especially damaging about false advertising? It is certainly annoying â" and disgusting â" but it poses no special threat...
Turn the question upside down. What is the "special benefit" to society of allowing false advertising? The overwhelming majority want it illegal isn't that pretty much by definition sufficient for it to be made so?
Back to my question a few posts ago â" is the First Amendment (the free speech part) meaningful at all in your opinion? [...] Or is Congress allowed, contrary to what the Amendment states, to make speech-limiting laws as long as some excuse for that can be found?
A 2/3rd majority in congress and the senate plus 38 state legislatures and they can just amend the constitution to allow them to make any adjustment they like.
your waxing argument about inevitability of compromises seems to suggest, a popular law can limit various kinds of speech
That or anything else really. The 18th coming and going nicely illustrates the fluidity possible. The idea that anything is somehow fixed in stone against sufficient popularity or unpopularity is demonstrably false.
While the constitution is the master guiding principles for a nation; if the first got in the way of what the overwhelming majority wanted, it would be amended out of the way. The threshhold to make a change at that level is quite a bit higher than a regular law; but a sufficiently popular law is always passable.
In any case, I think the "meaninfulness" of the first amendment is represented by the fact that these cases are routinely decided by the supreme court. Precedent is debated and set at the highest levels. Not having the first amendment would make it MUCH easier to abridge freedom of speech, and would make it a much lower bar. You called it a 'slippery slope'... the first amendment adds quite a bit of friction.
Does this imply, we'd be better off governed by a) aliens; b) AI; c) humans more equal than the rest of us?
It implies we're doomed to at least somewhat ineffective self-government for the foreseeable future. At any rate I'll take ineffective self government over abdicating the responsibility entirely.
such as, for example, that famous example of yelling "fire" (or "gun!") in a crowd, you start down a very steep and slippery slope.
Pretty much everything is a continuum. It's not wrong to be concerned about the slippery slope from one side of the continuum to the other, and we should be constantly vigilant. That's basically me agree with what you wrote in bold.
But everything is a slippery slope to something else. And more importantly every ideal conflicts with every other ideal so compromise is inevitable.
A Republic (and a Democracy) can survive such bogus claims being legal. They are a nuisance, but not a threat.
I disagree. A republic and a democracy can't abide them being legal. The people want freedom of speech, but they also want justice and they also want security, etc. A democracy strives to find the right balance.
Absolute freedom is anarchy. Absolute security is slavery.
No society will abide absolute unrestricted freedom of speech because that leads to egregious intolerable compromises of justice and security and our other ideals. We want perjury to be illegal, we want lawyers to be bound to keep their clients communications confidentatial.. etc. Because this serves the ideals of justice.
The 'slippery slope' on the continuum of freedom of speech is due to the pressures exerted by the other ideals, at absolute freedom the other ideals exert immense pressure. Unlike a hill, you don't accelerate as you descend. As compromises are made the pressure eases off, and if you go too far people start pushing back towards freedom. (Frankly I'd say we've started to reach this point -- the level of support for Trump and acceptance of what he spews represents a push against how much freedom of speech we've given up.
In any case, I think most people here would agree that the public's desire for security between recent events and manipulation has shifted the balance too far along that axis at the expense of both freedom and justice.
But I'd argue the problem there is not a fundamental problem with the acceptance of the idea that a functioning democracy will find a balance. I'd argue that the underlying problem here is that a functioning democracy cannot survive the concentration of power and accretion of wealth into too few hands; because that subverts the natural balancing act and gives those people too much influence. I also question whether democracy can work when so many people are distracted by bread and circuses. Is that a cultural problem that can be overcome? Or are humans just generally too self-involved, and too easily distracted to care about governing themselves properly. But I think our best shot would be to prioritize education, welfare (basic income) so they'd maybe see through the partisan bullshit, and look with disdain at the bread and circuses (reality tv, cat videos, etc...) and have the luxury of time, and the requisite educatation to allow them to make thoughtful choices.
Or maybe humans just aren't capable of effective self government yet.
Political speech mostly, and the expression of ideas are the most protected.
Commercial speech (including commercial advertising) is some of the least protected. (Consider that its not just this anti-discrimination in advertising law, but also truth in advertising laws, labelling laws, trademark law, and so forth are all effectively a limitation on people from saying anything they want to sell a product... in that you can't say your snake oil contains unicorn tears, cures cancer, and then stick the J&J logo on it and declare the Potus uses it daily.
the whole concept of targeted ads is not discriminator.
The whole concept of targeted ads is discriminatory. Targeting is practically a synonym for discriminating. Most discrimination or targetting isn't illegal though, but discriminating on race generally is.
So targeting people who like hockey by advertising during a hockey game instead of an NBA is legal. As is telling facebook to show the ad only to people who 'liked' hockey.
But telling facebook to only show an ad to white people ? That's probably going to end up being found not legal.
If by some chance a black person sees one of these housing ads its not like they will be stopped from buying a house.
Where is this part of your argument going ? That as long as a black person has a theoretical chance to buy a house the ad isn't illegal? How far are you willing to go with that? Can i put out an ad that says 'move here to a nice white neighborhood with no lazy loser black people' and 'we don't want any blacks' is that ok too? I mean... if by some chance a black person sees it , it's not like the ad itself stops them from buying a house.
I don't support any restrictions on speech, including whatever strawman you want to prop up.
Ok... this sounds like nutter talk.
You can be held responsible and culpable for the direct results of your speech, however.
Ah... ok; all speech is unrestricted but there can be consequences for what you say... that's reasonable then.
If you can't see the distinction, you're a useful idiot.
But it's a distinction without much difference in this case. What is the so-called 'direct result' of speech? All results of speech can be argued indirect. Unless the speech is literally so loud it damages your ears.
Here the arguably direct result of selectively not showing advertising for housing to black people is "discrimination in advertising housing based on race". Which is against the law...
What made the action illegal is the thought held by the "perpetrators". That makes it a thought-crime.
That's a pretty unconventional definition of thought crime. Where did you come up with that? I can't even find any reference that supports that definition, even as a 2ndary use of the term.
Your definition of 'thought crime' includes murder.
credible death threats are assaults.
Of course they are. What's your point? Didn't you make the argument that the first amendment trumps criminal law?
Slander has been a tort (not a crime) since well before the First Amendment was written.
Well duh. The first amendment was written to correct an oversight in the law before it was written. Hence... 'amendment'.
Should not be illegal either.
Its all fun and games until someone is trampled to death by a panicked mob.
People gaining legitimate access to such intelligence voluntarily give up the right to this speech.
1) What about the rest of the people? You don't need legimate access to intelligence to be a spy after all. 2) So now you can just give up your inalienable constitutional rights to get a job?
About half of Slashdot feels, this is a bogus prohibition too...
I didn't expect everyone to agree with all of them, hence lots of examples.
More importantly, the concept of "intellectual property" has been with us since the Constitution was written, its authors still alive.
Ding, ding ding! Precisely! Why its almost as if the authors didn't actually think the first amendment mean you could say anything you wanted anytime you wanted. Their were a bunch of assumed exceptions to it before the ink was even dry... slander, assault, copyright, espionage, perjury...
Speech under oath is different.
In that it is somehow not speech? Or that it is different in that it is like slander, assault, copyright infringement, inciting a panic leading to death, and espionage, a whole laundry list of exceptions to free speech that most everyone not only accept but even mostly agrees with?
Contrary to your suspicions, I am not a racist. Let's keep the present company outside of the conversation.
Sure.
Yes, racists are no less entitled to the Constitutional protections than the rest of us â" please, make sure to explicitly state, whether or not you agree with this, in any follow-up.
I explicitly do think they are entitled to the constitutional protections. Where we seem to disagree is on what actions are actually constitutionally protected.
An action was taken that affected others. It's not a 'thought crime'.
The allegedly-violated itself obviously violates the First Amendment and is thus invalid.
Obviously?
It is both unconstitutional, [...]
Through the lens of the first amendment... any limitations on making death threats, committing slander, leaking intelligence to foreign governments, yelling fire in a theater, printing bootleg copies of movies and selling them, and perjury, are all obviously" unconstitutional too. And yet you probably support at least some of those.
So is the first amendment is only the most important thing when it supports the thing you want to support?
Whatever it was we tried for over 50 years to achieve racial harmony, is not working.
History suggests race relations have largely improved over the last 50 years. So while we can agree there is lots wrong with the laws, and lots of problems still to solve, I don't think a blanket... 'its not working' is valid. Real progress has been made.
Let's stop sacrificing actual rights to it..
Would that be your right to be a racist and actively discriminate against other citizens?
From which we can objectively say that other phones catch fire too.
And I wouldn't worry about the J5 too much... it looks like a cut down version of the S5. Hardly cutting edge or pushing any boundaries. It came out in June 2015. So 18 months... one handset. People are definitely just attaching it to the samsung hype.
I didn't say anything about PIIGS or whether it's derogatory
You DID say:
"it is just an Arabic abbreviation of their name. It's not a pejorative."
That implied to me that you were arguing that things that are "just an abbreviation" are not pejorative. PIIGS is a counter example. Its fine if you agree, and didn't intend to make a statement about 'just an abbreviation' in general.
So we agree then that that things at are 'just abbreviations' can still be perjorative?
And that just leaves the very specific case of "Daesh", which you claimed wasn't perjorative. But that doesn't really stand up if you read MY links, which show:
a) clear intent by western powers to use Daesh specifically to show disrespect and to cause offense. Intent of the speaker to cause offense is practically the defining characteristic of a slur.
and
b) clear offense taken by them, with reports by the AP going so far as to threaten to cut out the tongues of anyone they heard using the term.
I'm not sure how you can possibly think the contents of your links (which i did read) refute this.
Just like calling Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece & Spain the PIIGS to concisely call out the 5 weakest countries in the eurozone financial crisis. That's not perjorative either right? It's just a simple acronym. Nobody was offended by it right?
But your right Daesh is just an arabic abbreviation; and nobody is offended by it...
"The term âoeDaeshâ is strategically a better choice because it is still accurate in that it spells out the acronym of the groupâ(TM)s full Arabic name, al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham. Yet, at the same time, âoeDaeshâ can also be understood as a play on words â" and an insult. Depending on how it is conjugated in Arabic, it can mean anything from âoeto trample down and crushâ to âoea bigot who imposes his view on others.â Already, the group has reportedly threatened to cut out the tongues of anyone who uses the term."
"Several residents in Mosul, Iraqâ(TM)s second-largest city which fell to the extremist group in June, told The Associated Press that the militants threatened to cut the tongue of anyone who publicly used the acronym Daesh, instead of referring to the group by its full name, saying it shows defiance and disrespect. The residents spoke anonymously out of fear for their safety."
In any case, the all-in jump to USB-C is really forward looking.
You and I actually live in the present.
It's undoubtedly a hassle now
Yes. It is. And by the time the future you are forward looking to actually arrives we'll be buying new laptops. So this laptop is just a hassle.
, but part of the reason for that is because there aren't enough USB-C compatible computers to warrant USB-C devices, and there aren't enough USB-C devices that companies have been including a lot of USB-C ports
Yes, the chicken and the egg problem. However you don't conduct your social experiments on the pro users. Its fine that the macbook only has USBC. It's fine if the next macbook air only has USBC. But pro users are in the market for devices that work WITHOUT hassles, not 'maybe without hassles in 5 years after they've given it to their kids'.
Apple has forced the hand of accessories makers.
Not really. All they've done is force me to buy a pile of adapters. (if I bought one) and I already have the adapter for ethernet... which i'd have to replace.
It's a short term pain for a long term gain--exactly the same way it was when they moved to USB-A in the first place.
This is nothing like when they switched from ADB to USB. ADB was a shitty proprietary bus and other than a few barcode scanners the only thing that really used it was apple keyboards and mice -- and your new USB only iMac CAME with a keyboard and mouse. (yeah it was a shitty puck mouse... but at least it came with it)
This time around, I've got piles of accumulated technology that uses USBA. From my kids lego mind storms to my harmony remote to my mechanical keyboard to the flash drive I use with my car stereo, to my gaming headset, to the usb to serial adapter i use to connec to to the console port on cisco routers. Everything I have would need an adapter with the macbook pro... every usb device I own, and even my existing thunderbolt stuff.
And 3 years from now... most of this stuff... I'm STILL going to be using a lot of it. It'll take a decade for this stuff to wear and get replaced, even i started only buying USBC stuff today going forward... I'd still have a decent amount of USBA stuff in use for the entire life of this laptop.
And I'm NOT going to run out and buy USBC stuff today, because
It'll get better with time. But it takes TIME. Let the consumer early adopter play on the bleeding edge, the pros want mature reliable stuff that connects WITHOUT HASSLE to the equipment they rely on.
b) I have other devices. I'm not going to buy a USBC flash drive, because all my other computers, and all the computers at work, and all the computers my relatives have are USBA. There are some combo devices... but they are over-priced and inelegant devices with ports sticking out of both ends. I'm not going to run out and buy a USBC keyboard either... same reason... my other laptops and devices are all USBA. Maybe 5 years from now when most of hte computers I interact with have USBC THEN I'll get a USBC keyboard... but today? Doesn't make sense. All apple has done is make using a macbook pro a needless hassle.
And 5 years from now... whose to say USBC utopia ever even happens? Maybe it does. Or maybe we'll need a new connector to handle dual-link thunderbolt 6 holographic displays... or we'll get our energy densities and charging tech up and people will want to dock their phone into their electric bicycle and power it from the phone. And we'll need a new connector that can move a lot more energy through it. One standard to rule them all... right until the next one comes out.
But wait there's "one more thing" Apple... by using USBC as a charging port, and as a display port... now I
Less than 100% of people that buy the Macbook Pro are photography professionals. (What percentage, I can't say.) Of those people, fewer than 100% of them use standard SD cards. Many Nikon photographers have been in the same boat as me for years.
To paraphrase, nearly 100% of people that buy the Macbook Pro will need at some point to attach a peripheral to it.
Nearly 100% of those people will NOT be using a USBC device.
USBA, HDMI, ethernet are probably the most likely. SDCard, CF are definitely further down the list. serial, parallel, ps2 are even further down.
There's certainly a reasonable argument to be made that CF is far enough down the list and that CF is bulky enough that it doesn't make sense to include it. But USBA? HDMI? ethernet?
Macbook pro users that will need to attach a USBA port at some point likely approaches 100%
The addition of more versatile interconnects makes far more sense from a design and appeal perspective than keeping around slots that some people are guaranteed to never or rarely use.
Past a certain point yes. On the other hand everyone who needs a serial port already owns a USBA to serial adapter. Everyone who needs CF already owns a usba to CF adapter.
Having a laptop that out of the box doesn't work with ANYTHING anyone owns without another adapter is idiotic.
Elegance is when there's nothing left to take away. This is a far more elegant solution.
Then take away the keyboard and the trackpad, and sell us a tablet, and if we need a keyboard and can attach those too. But there is a reason we bought a laptop instead of a tablet in the first place. And there is a reason we passed on the macbook air and the macbook to get a macbook pro... and guess what, being able to plug the things we need into it was a big one of those reasons. They took away things that people need. The fact that there is a clumsy workaround with adapters is not 'elegance'.
43Ã--36Ã--3.3 mm (Type I) (most everything today is type I) vs 32.0Ã--24.0Ã--2.1 mm Standard SD card
Its bigger... but its not that big. My previous macbook pro had an expresscard slot that was far bigger than a CF port,and a DVDRW.... there was lots of room on the 2010-2012 macbook pros especially since thunderbolt has replaced expresscard and DVDRWs are no longer required... lots of room for ports and more battery.
So, yes. The rules are quite different depending on who your friends are, who you are and how much financial influence you can wave around.
All these 'low level flunkie sent to prison for the same thing' anecdotes that people trot out to compare to clinton... most of their fates were sealed because they confessed to committing a crime when they were questioned.
As they say, rule 1 for talking to the police is don't talk to the police. The biggest predictor for the outcome in a lot of these cases is that they talked to the police and made a confession to a crime before they even spoke to a lawyer.
There is obviously a correlation between wealth and legal representation. But the *causal* element, and primary predictor is legal advice not wealth -- keep your damn mouth shut and get a lawyer even if you aren't rich... and suddenly the so called "special rules that apply to clinton and keep her out of jail when lesser fools end up in jail" largely apply to you too.
If the police have to prosecute one case based on complicated technical evidence, and another based on the fact that the defendant confessed to the crime... well guess which lawsuit is more likely to prevail? Guess which one is more likely to even proceed.
If you hand the prosecution your conviction on a silver platter, you'll be prosecuted and convicted. It's that simple.
Variety matters... but there's not really a LOT of different debt instruments the average person has (crredit card + morgatge + some sort of other small secured loan e.g. HELOC or car loan) so 2-3 different types of credit account basically maxes your score.
And length matters too. Although bad stuff falls off after several years anyway. As do closed accounts. I know of people who ran into issues with credit because it had been years since they needed any. A widow who's various loans and mortgages had all closed and fallen off the report. And who had a spousal card with her husband to share the points rewards (so the one remaining active credit account wasn't in her name)... essentially had no credit history... despite having had plenty of credit in her name through her life. (She had been on the mortgage... she had been on car loans... etc)
My point was a simple credit history is not a bad thing as relates to the score.
You are, of course, correct, in observing that credit history length *is* important. Its also worth pointing that creditors do not simply look at your score and approve the loan... they look at your income/debt ratio, employment situation, assets & ability to repay. You credit "score" is just a piece and its not hard to get rejected for a loan despite having a great score for many reasons.
You want everything to just be verbal because it is easier, and you can clarify things and/or change your mind ("I meant sky blue, not royal blue").
I as a customer, want everything in writing too, so that when (not if) a contractor does something wrong we have what was specified *in writing* so we can get them to fix it 'on their time and their dime'.
And I've dealt with lots of contractors who don't seem interested in doing things in writing. And then the inevitable arguments... "you said you'd remove and dispose of the old wiring panel as part of the job.", "you said you'd take care of the permitting"...you said you'd manage the sub-trades, and now they're asking me to be onsite for building access..."
Hell even when it is IN writing, i wish there was MORE writing.
"You agreed to implement the search functionality for the website" -- "no that doesn't say anything about implementing search" -- "look here... in the corners of the mockups we both signed off on... we have have a search box" -- "yeah but those are just the visual mockups the search box is just a place holder, we never quoted you for implementing search; see the function list here on page 5... we didn't quote for search... " -- "FFS you actually HAVE the search box on most of the pages of the deliverable site, it just doesn't do anything.... "
You know you are in the underclass when you find it useful to have proof of what you have done.
You know you are in the upper class when you find it useful to not have any proof of what you have done.
I suspect its more like...
you know you did something where you are in the right when you find it useful to have proof of what you said and did.
you know you are in the wrong (illegal, unethical, whatever) when you find it useful not to have any proof of what you said or did.
While there is a correlation between the 'upper class' behaving illegally and unethically, and the 'under class' trying to keep the shit from landing on them there are plenty of (bottom class) criminals who (if they have 2 cells in their brains to rub together) also know better than to leave a 'paper trail'.
So your argument then is for adding a CF card slot right? Not removing all the slots and giving you none?
That's kind of my point. Its not like they couldn't make a laptop with CF AND SD, as well as ethernet and hdmi and USB3, AND the 4 USB-C ports AND more than 16GB RAM, and maybe a bit thicker with more battery.
You know... a laptop professionals might be interested in.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah! For crying out loud, why don't you just rearrange all the furniture in other people's houses and offices to accomodate your need to keep doing something when your battery runs low in such way that the outlet is never accross any space a person or pet might traverse! Jeez why didn't i think of that?
The red states are the relative beneficiaries of federal taxes. (Essentially the democrat coastal states subsidize the red states. They pay more in federal tax than they get back from the feds, while the red states get more then they pay.)
If there actually was a secession, I'd say the heartland has bigger economic concerns than the coastal states.
Apple *do* know their target markets after all!
There is a large market for people who wanted a faster and better macbook air. The air was overdue for an update and apple hit the mark with it. The macbook pro 2016 is a great successor to the macbook air for people with a bunch of money who wanted a faster macbook pair.
The "problem" is that this left a complete vacuum in the product line for people who actually wanted a macbook pro.
To make a car analogy,... if Ford releases a sexy new F-150... exept it's a car, and it's basically just a nicer faster Mustang.... then it could sell really well to people who own Mustangs and wanted something faster and better. That doesn't make it a bad product, and it'll sell well etc.
But for people who were buying F-150s because they needed a pickup truck, well their left going WTF. Especially, because, to make the anology complete the F150 in this scenario happens to be the ONLY truck ford made. So its not like truck customers could move into the F250 or something. The F150 is now a car. If you needed a truck... well fuck you.
And THAT is the new macbook "pro"... its a fine laptop on its own, its a nice upgrade from the macbook air... but its a useless joke if you are looking for a pro laptop.
Why? It is not illegal to lie in most other circumstances, what's so especially damaging about false advertising? It is certainly annoying â" and disgusting â" but it poses no special threat...
Turn the question upside down. What is the "special benefit" to society of allowing false advertising? The overwhelming majority want it illegal isn't that pretty much by definition sufficient for it to be made so?
Back to my question a few posts ago â" is the First Amendment (the free speech part) meaningful at all in your opinion? [...] Or is Congress allowed, contrary to what the Amendment states, to make speech-limiting laws as long as some excuse for that can be found?
A 2/3rd majority in congress and the senate plus 38 state legislatures and they can just amend the constitution to allow them to make any adjustment they like.
your waxing argument about inevitability of compromises seems to suggest, a popular law can limit various kinds of speech
That or anything else really. The 18th coming and going nicely illustrates the fluidity possible. The idea that anything is somehow fixed in stone against sufficient popularity or unpopularity is demonstrably false.
While the constitution is the master guiding principles for a nation; if the first got in the way of what the overwhelming majority wanted, it would be amended out of the way. The threshhold to make a change at that level is quite a bit higher than a regular law; but a sufficiently popular law is always passable.
In any case, I think the "meaninfulness" of the first amendment is represented by the fact that these cases are routinely decided by the supreme court. Precedent is debated and set at the highest levels. Not having the first amendment would make it MUCH easier to abridge freedom of speech, and would make it a much lower bar. You called it a 'slippery slope'... the first amendment adds quite a bit of friction.
Does this imply, we'd be better off governed by a) aliens; b) AI; c) humans more equal than the rest of us?
It implies we're doomed to at least somewhat ineffective self-government for the foreseeable future. At any rate I'll take ineffective self government over abdicating the responsibility entirely.
such as, for example, that famous example of yelling "fire" (or "gun!") in a crowd, you start down a very steep and slippery slope.
Pretty much everything is a continuum. It's not wrong to be concerned about the slippery slope from one side of the continuum to the other, and we should be constantly vigilant. That's basically me agree with what you wrote in bold.
But everything is a slippery slope to something else. And more importantly every ideal conflicts with every other ideal so compromise is inevitable.
A Republic (and a Democracy) can survive such bogus claims being legal. They are a nuisance, but not a threat.
I disagree. A republic and a democracy can't abide them being legal. The people want freedom of speech, but they also want justice and they also want security, etc. A democracy strives to find the right balance.
Absolute freedom is anarchy. Absolute security is slavery.
No society will abide absolute unrestricted freedom of speech because that leads to egregious intolerable compromises of justice and security and our other ideals. We want perjury to be illegal, we want lawyers to be bound to keep their clients communications confidentatial.. etc. Because this serves the ideals of justice.
The 'slippery slope' on the continuum of freedom of speech is due to the pressures exerted by the other ideals, at absolute freedom the other ideals exert immense pressure. Unlike a hill, you don't accelerate as you descend. As compromises are made the pressure eases off, and if you go too far people start pushing back towards freedom. (Frankly I'd say we've started to reach this point -- the level of support for Trump and acceptance of what he spews represents a push against how much freedom of speech we've given up.
In any case, I think most people here would agree that the public's desire for security between recent events and manipulation has shifted the balance too far along that axis at the expense of both freedom and justice.
But I'd argue the problem there is not a fundamental problem with the acceptance of the idea that a functioning democracy will find a balance. I'd argue that the underlying problem here is that a functioning democracy cannot survive the concentration of power and accretion of wealth into too few hands; because that subverts the natural balancing act and gives those people too much influence. I also question whether democracy can work when so many people are distracted by bread and circuses. Is that a cultural problem that can be overcome? Or are humans just generally too self-involved, and too easily distracted to care about governing themselves properly. But I think our best shot would be to prioritize education, welfare (basic income) so they'd maybe see through the partisan bullshit, and look with disdain at the bread and circuses (reality tv, cat videos, etc...) and have the luxury of time, and the requisite educatation to allow them to make thoughtful choices.
Or maybe humans just aren't capable of effective self government yet.
So, is anything protected by the Amendment,
Political speech mostly, and the expression of ideas are the most protected.
Commercial speech (including commercial advertising) is some of the least protected. (Consider that its not just this anti-discrimination in advertising law, but also truth in advertising laws, labelling laws, trademark law, and so forth are all effectively a limitation on people from saying anything they want to sell a product... in that you can't say your snake oil contains unicorn tears, cures cancer, and then stick the J&J logo on it and declare the Potus uses it daily.
the whole concept of targeted ads is not discriminator.
The whole concept of targeted ads is discriminatory. Targeting is practically a synonym for discriminating. Most discrimination or targetting isn't illegal though, but discriminating on race generally is.
So targeting people who like hockey by advertising during a hockey game instead of an NBA is legal. As is telling facebook to show the ad only to people who 'liked' hockey.
But telling facebook to only show an ad to white people ? That's probably going to end up being found not legal.
If by some chance a black person sees one of these housing ads its not like they will be stopped from buying a house.
Where is this part of your argument going ? That as long as a black person has a theoretical chance to buy a house the ad isn't illegal? How far are you willing to go with that? Can i put out an ad that says 'move here to a nice white neighborhood with no lazy loser black people' and 'we don't want any blacks' is that ok too? I mean... if by some chance a black person sees it , it's not like the ad itself stops them from buying a house.
I don't support any restrictions on speech, including whatever strawman you want to prop up.
Ok... this sounds like nutter talk.
You can be held responsible and culpable for the direct results of your speech, however.
Ah... ok; all speech is unrestricted but there can be consequences for what you say... that's reasonable then.
If you can't see the distinction, you're a useful idiot.
But it's a distinction without much difference in this case. What is the so-called 'direct result' of speech? All results of speech can be argued indirect. Unless the speech is literally so loud it damages your ears.
Here the arguably direct result of selectively not showing advertising for housing to black people is "discrimination in advertising housing based on race". Which is against the law...
What made the action illegal is the thought held by the "perpetrators". That makes it a thought-crime.
That's a pretty unconventional definition of thought crime. Where did you come up with that? I can't even find any reference that supports that definition, even as a 2ndary use of the term.
Your definition of 'thought crime' includes murder.
credible death threats are assaults.
Of course they are. What's your point? Didn't you make the argument that the first amendment trumps criminal law?
Slander has been a tort (not a crime) since well before the First Amendment was written.
Well duh. The first amendment was written to correct an oversight in the law before it was written. Hence... 'amendment'.
Should not be illegal either.
Its all fun and games until someone is trampled to death by a panicked mob.
People gaining legitimate access to such intelligence voluntarily give up the right to this speech.
1) What about the rest of the people? You don't need legimate access to intelligence to be a spy after all.
2) So now you can just give up your inalienable constitutional rights to get a job?
About half of Slashdot feels, this is a bogus prohibition too...
I didn't expect everyone to agree with all of them, hence lots of examples.
More importantly, the concept of "intellectual property" has been with us since the Constitution was written, its authors still alive.
Ding, ding ding! Precisely! Why its almost as if the authors didn't actually think the first amendment mean you could say anything you wanted anytime you wanted. Their were a bunch of assumed exceptions to it before the ink was even dry... slander, assault, copyright, espionage, perjury...
Speech under oath is different.
In that it is somehow not speech? Or that it is different in that it is like slander, assault, copyright infringement, inciting a panic leading to death, and espionage, a whole laundry list of exceptions to free speech that most everyone not only accept but even mostly agrees with?
Contrary to your suspicions, I am not a racist. Let's keep the present company outside of the conversation.
Sure.
Yes, racists are no less entitled to the Constitutional protections than the rest of us â" please, make sure to explicitly state, whether or not you agree with this, in any follow-up.
I explicitly do think they are entitled to the constitutional protections.
Where we seem to disagree is on what actions are actually constitutionally protected.
Bogus law outlawing Thought-crimes
An action was taken that affected others. It's not a 'thought crime'.
The allegedly-violated itself obviously violates the First Amendment and is thus invalid.
Obviously?
It is both unconstitutional, [...]
Through the lens of the first amendment... any limitations on making death threats, committing slander, leaking intelligence to foreign governments, yelling fire in a theater, printing bootleg copies of movies and selling them, and perjury, are all obviously" unconstitutional too. And yet you probably support at least some of those.
So is the first amendment is only the most important thing when it supports the thing you want to support?
Whatever it was we tried for over 50 years to achieve racial harmony, is not working.
History suggests race relations have largely improved over the last 50 years. So while we can agree there is lots wrong with the laws, and lots of problems still to solve, I don't think a blanket... 'its not working' is valid. Real progress has been made.
Let's stop sacrificing actual rights to it..
Would that be your right to be a racist and actively discriminate against other citizens?
Exactly right.
Is Samsung being unfairly further beat up here because of the laser of media attention on it now?
Yes.
What do the objective facts say.
The public i don't think is privy to much in the way of real stats.
But anecdotally...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.phonearena.com/news...
http://www.windowscentral.com/...
http://gadgets.ndtv.com/mobile...
From which we can objectively say that other phones catch fire too.
And I wouldn't worry about the J5 too much... it looks like a cut down version of the S5. Hardly cutting edge or pushing any boundaries. It came out in June 2015. So 18 months... one handset. People are definitely just attaching it to the samsung hype.
I didn't say anything about PIIGS or whether it's derogatory
You DID say:
"it is just an Arabic abbreviation of their name. It's not a pejorative."
That implied to me that you were arguing that things that are "just an abbreviation" are not pejorative. PIIGS is a counter example. Its fine if you agree, and didn't intend to make a statement about 'just an abbreviation' in general.
So we agree then that that things at are 'just abbreviations' can still be perjorative?
And that just leaves the very specific case of "Daesh", which you claimed wasn't perjorative. But that doesn't really stand up if you read MY links, which show:
a) clear intent by western powers to use Daesh specifically to show disrespect and to cause offense. Intent of the speaker to cause offense is practically the defining characteristic of a slur.
and
b) clear offense taken by them, with reports by the AP going so far as to threaten to cut out the tongues of anyone they heard using the term.
I'm not sure how you can possibly think the contents of your links (which i did read) refute this.
Just like calling Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece & Spain the PIIGS to concisely call out the 5 weakest countries in the eurozone financial crisis. That's not perjorative either right? It's just a simple acronym. Nobody was offended by it right?
Oh wait.. .."
"The term is widely considered derogatory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But your right Daesh is just an arabic abbreviation; and nobody is offended by it...
"The term âoeDaeshâ is strategically a better choice because it is still accurate in that it spells out the acronym of the groupâ(TM)s full Arabic name, al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham. Yet, at the same time, âoeDaeshâ can also be understood as a play on words â" and an insult. Depending on how it is conjugated in Arabic, it can mean anything from âoeto trample down and crushâ to âoea bigot who imposes his view on others.â Already, the group has reportedly threatened to cut out the tongues of anyone who uses the term."
https://blog.ap.org/announceme...
"Several residents in Mosul, Iraqâ(TM)s second-largest city which fell to the extremist group in June, told The Associated Press that the militants threatened to cut the tongue of anyone who publicly used the acronym Daesh, instead of referring to the group by its full name, saying it shows defiance and disrespect. The residents spoke anonymously out of fear for their safety."
In any case, the all-in jump to USB-C is really forward looking.
You and I actually live in the present.
It's undoubtedly a hassle now
Yes. It is. And by the time the future you are forward looking to actually arrives we'll be buying new laptops. So this laptop is just a hassle.
, but part of the reason for that is because there aren't enough USB-C compatible computers to warrant USB-C devices, and there aren't enough USB-C devices that companies have been including a lot of USB-C ports
Yes, the chicken and the egg problem. However you don't conduct your social experiments on the pro users. Its fine that the macbook only has USBC. It's fine if the next macbook air only has USBC. But pro users are in the market for devices that work WITHOUT hassles, not 'maybe without hassles in 5 years after they've given it to their kids'.
Apple has forced the hand of accessories makers.
Not really. All they've done is force me to buy a pile of adapters. (if I bought one) and I already have the adapter for ethernet... which i'd have to replace.
It's a short term pain for a long term gain--exactly the same way it was when they moved to USB-A in the first place.
This is nothing like when they switched from ADB to USB. ADB was a shitty proprietary bus and other than a few barcode scanners the only thing that really used it was apple keyboards and mice -- and your new USB only iMac CAME with a keyboard and mouse. (yeah it was a shitty puck mouse... but at least it came with it)
This time around, I've got piles of accumulated technology that uses USBA. From my kids lego mind storms to my harmony remote to my mechanical keyboard to the flash drive I use with my car stereo, to my gaming headset, to the usb to serial adapter i use to connec to to the console port on cisco routers. Everything I have would need an adapter with the macbook pro... every usb device I own, and even my existing thunderbolt stuff.
And 3 years from now... most of this stuff... I'm STILL going to be using a lot of it. It'll take a decade for this stuff to wear and get replaced, even i started only buying USBC stuff today going forward... I'd still have a decent amount of USBA stuff in use for the entire life of this laptop.
And I'm NOT going to run out and buy USBC stuff today, because
a) USB accessories are a bleeding edge mess.
http://www.laptopmag.com/artic...
It'll get better with time. But it takes TIME. Let the consumer early adopter play on the bleeding edge, the pros want mature reliable stuff that connects WITHOUT HASSLE to the equipment they rely on.
b) I have other devices. I'm not going to buy a USBC flash drive, because all my other computers, and all the computers at work, and all the computers my relatives have are USBA. There are some combo devices... but they are over-priced and inelegant devices with ports sticking out of both ends. I'm not going to run out and buy a USBC keyboard either... same reason... my other laptops and devices are all USBA. Maybe 5 years from now when most of hte computers I interact with have USBC THEN I'll get a USBC keyboard... but today? Doesn't make sense. All apple has done is make using a macbook pro a needless hassle.
And 5 years from now... whose to say USBC utopia ever even happens? Maybe it does. Or maybe we'll need a new connector to handle dual-link thunderbolt 6 holographic displays... or we'll get our energy densities and charging tech up and people will want to dock their phone into their electric bicycle and power it from the phone. And we'll need a new connector that can move a lot more energy through it. One standard to rule them all... right until the next one comes out.
But wait there's "one more thing" Apple... by using USBC as a charging port, and as a display port... now I
Not sure how that refutes my argument. It seems in this case you both 'knew' you were right, and you both wanted documentation.
Less than 100% of people that buy the Macbook Pro are photography professionals. (What percentage, I can't say.)
Of those people, fewer than 100% of them use standard SD cards. Many Nikon photographers have been in the same boat as me for years.
To paraphrase, nearly 100% of people that buy the Macbook Pro will need at some point to attach a peripheral to it.
Nearly 100% of those people will NOT be using a USBC device.
USBA, HDMI, ethernet are probably the most likely.
SDCard, CF are definitely further down the list.
serial, parallel, ps2 are even further down.
There's certainly a reasonable argument to be made that CF is far enough down the list and that CF is bulky enough that it doesn't make sense to include it. But USBA? HDMI? ethernet?
Macbook pro users that will need to attach a USBA port at some point likely approaches 100%
The addition of more versatile interconnects makes far more sense from a design and appeal perspective than keeping around slots that some people are guaranteed to never or rarely use.
Past a certain point yes. On the other hand everyone who needs a serial port already owns a USBA to serial adapter. Everyone who needs CF already owns a usba to CF adapter.
Having a laptop that out of the box doesn't work with ANYTHING anyone owns without another adapter is idiotic.
Elegance is when there's nothing left to take away. This is a far more elegant solution.
Then take away the keyboard and the trackpad, and sell us a tablet, and if we need a keyboard and can attach those too. But there is a reason we bought a laptop instead of a tablet in the first place. And there is a reason we passed on the macbook air and the macbook to get a macbook pro... and guess what, being able to plug the things we need into it was a big one of those reasons. They took away things that people need. The fact that there is a clumsy workaround with adapters is not 'elegance'.
43Ã--36Ã--3.3 mm (Type I) (most everything today is type I)
vs
32.0Ã--24.0Ã--2.1 mm Standard SD card
Its bigger... but its not that big. My previous macbook pro had an expresscard slot that was far bigger than a CF port,and a DVDRW.... there was lots of room on the 2010-2012 macbook pros especially since thunderbolt has replaced expresscard and DVDRWs are no longer required... lots of room for ports and more battery.
So, yes. The rules are quite different depending on who your friends are, who you are and how much financial influence you can wave around.
All these 'low level flunkie sent to prison for the same thing' anecdotes that people trot out to compare to clinton... most of their fates were sealed because they confessed to committing a crime when they were questioned.
As they say, rule 1 for talking to the police is don't talk to the police. The biggest predictor for the outcome in a lot of these cases is that they talked to the police and made a confession to a crime before they even spoke to a lawyer.
There is obviously a correlation between wealth and legal representation. But the *causal* element, and primary predictor is legal advice not wealth -- keep your damn mouth shut and get a lawyer even if you aren't rich... and suddenly the so called "special rules that apply to clinton and keep her out of jail when lesser fools end up in jail" largely apply to you too.
If the police have to prosecute one case based on complicated technical evidence, and another based on the fact that the defendant confessed to the crime ... well guess which lawsuit is more likely to prevail? Guess which one is more likely to even proceed.
If you hand the prosecution your conviction on a silver platter, you'll be prosecuted and convicted. It's that simple.
Yes. You are correct. I misspoke.
Variety matters... but there's not really a LOT of different debt instruments the average person has (crredit card + morgatge + some sort of other small secured loan e.g. HELOC or car loan) so 2-3 different types of credit account basically maxes your score.
And length matters too. Although bad stuff falls off after several years anyway. As do closed accounts. I know of people who ran into issues with credit because it had been years since they needed any. A widow who's various loans and mortgages had all closed and fallen off the report. And who had a spousal card with her husband to share the points rewards (so the one remaining active credit account wasn't in her name)... essentially had no credit history... despite having had plenty of credit in her name through her life. (She had been on the mortgage... she had been on car loans... etc)
My point was a simple credit history is not a bad thing as relates to the score.
You are, of course, correct, in observing that credit history length *is* important. Its also worth pointing that creditors do not simply look at your score and approve the loan... they look at your income/debt ratio, employment situation, assets & ability to repay. You credit "score" is just a piece and its not hard to get rejected for a loan despite having a great score for many reasons.
You want everything to just be verbal because it is easier, and you can clarify things and/or change your mind ("I meant sky blue, not royal blue").
I as a customer, want everything in writing too, so that when (not if) a contractor does something wrong we have what was specified *in writing* so we can get them to fix it 'on their time and their dime'.
And I've dealt with lots of contractors who don't seem interested in doing things in writing. And then the inevitable arguments... "you said you'd remove and dispose of the old wiring panel as part of the job.", "you said you'd take care of the permitting"...you said you'd manage the sub-trades, and now they're asking me to be onsite for building access..."
Hell even when it is IN writing, i wish there was MORE writing.
"You agreed to implement the search functionality for the website" -- "no that doesn't say anything about implementing search" -- "look here... in the corners of the mockups we both signed off on... we have have a search box" -- "yeah but those are just the visual mockups the search box is just a place holder, we never quoted you for implementing search; see the function list here on page 5... we didn't quote for search... " -- "FFS you actually HAVE the search box on most of the pages of the deliverable site, it just doesn't do anything.... "
Can you tell I've been there done that?
You know you are in the underclass when you find it useful to have proof of what you have done.
You know you are in the upper class when you find it useful to not have any proof of what you have done.
I suspect its more like...
you know you did something where you are in the right when you find it useful to have proof of what you said and did.
you know you are in the wrong (illegal, unethical, whatever) when you find it useful not to have any proof of what you said or did.
While there is a correlation between the 'upper class' behaving illegally and unethically, and the 'under class' trying to keep the shit from landing on them there are plenty of (bottom class) criminals who (if they have 2 cells in their brains to rub together) also know better than to leave a 'paper trail'.
Professionals use CF cards.
So your argument then is for adding a CF card slot right?
Not removing all the slots and giving you none?
That's kind of my point. Its not like they couldn't make a laptop with CF AND SD, as well as ethernet and hdmi and USB3, AND the 4 USB-C ports AND more than 16GB RAM, and maybe a bit thicker with more battery.
You know... a laptop professionals might be interested in.
"My daughter has only a year of two of having a credit card"
So she has a credit history, and assuming she pays her bill on time and in full... a great credit history.
"yet her bank tells her that she has a credit score of 849."
Funny how that works. Have a great credit history get a great score.
You do know that the scoring doesn't give you extra points for having LOTS of stuff in your file, right?