Look. If I go into my local bookmaker, put a tenner on a horse and walk back out with eleven quid, he's lost money.
Sure, he can lay off the bet. He isn't getting better odds than he offered me though, or I would have gone to the bookie with whom he transacted.
Losing a quid he can handle. But if I put on a pony, every race, and keep winning, every race, he's basically paying me to be a customer. There is no fucking vig, he's consistently and repeatedly giving more money to me than he's receiving.
Or maybe there is a market there, and well run companies with appropriate business understanding can sustainably meet customer needs and make a profit by servicing it.
Much like the film market. People want to watch films, someone offered a deal that let them see a lot of films very cheaply, they got excited about it and the media noticed lots of excited people.
If anything the unsustainable business model merely increased the media interest. People like a bit of drama, like a popular service predictably breaking.
I fail entirely to see the link between watching films and shovelling butter slathered popcorn.
I watch over a dozen movies every month and I haven't eaten popcorn for over two decades.
My choice of where and how to watch films includes cost, availability, convenience and other factors. Being able to see films in a cinema for less than the cost of my TV movie channel subscription would indeed be highly attractive, entirely rational and completely unlinked to anything you could describe as 'greed'.
So no, "the Greedy American" didn't kill it. The stupid, unaffordable and unsustainable business model killed it.
She's permabanned from Twitter, if that gives you any idea; that's not easy to achieve.
You're shitting me. It's fucking trivial to achieve. Just tweet anything coming out of California but change the word 'white' to 'black' or 'jew'. Instant fucking ban.
The companies have to manage and pay for the servers and infrastructure that keeps all of that running, which gives them the power to decide what they want on their platforms. Is it censoring? Yes, but its not much different from a business owner kicking you out of their shop for cursing up a storm
At the moment the companies are not liable for the comments published on their sites. If they're going to silence legal comments from some people but not others then they're editorialising and that needs to make them liable for the comments they editorially choose to allow.
So when some man hating piece of shit posts #killallmen Twitter should be liable for inciting violence, breaching hate speech laws and breaching the Communications Act 2003, prosecuted, fined and shutdown.
Sorry but either you editorialise or you don't. At the moment they're getting away with acting as editors but without the liability, and that's fucking wrong.
Not only did you comically try and use wikipedia as a source of authority, the wikipedia article you linked even supports the person to whom you replied.
Anyway, he used the term 'begs the question' not 'begging the question'. His usage was correct. You're a twat, and insulting people isn't immature.
Which is kind of stupid. A head-on collision with a closing speed well in excess of 100mph without seatbelts is going to result in drastically different body positions to ones that were held in place.
Their speech gave them the power and silent acceptance of the people to implement their final solution.
No. Their speech gave them the power, but their actions to quell dissent forced the silence of the people.
All of that happened many years before they adopted their final solution.
This lesson is the reason we are so careful with speech now.
This inability to learn the lesson is why you're fucking up so badly on protecting speech now.
Protect the speech that disagrees, for it is the primary defence against authoritarianism.
I do wonder what they teach to children in the other side of the last war
Well, if you mean Germany, they teach the things that you don't understand, like the real reason the Nazis came to power, why people welcomed them, how they then implemented an oppressive regime and why people didn't feel able to protest against it.
They also teach a scary amount of guilt, which I do find disconcerting.
Slashdot Mirror
Look. If I go into my local bookmaker, put a tenner on a horse and walk back out with eleven quid, he's lost money.
Sure, he can lay off the bet. He isn't getting better odds than he offered me though, or I would have gone to the bookie with whom he transacted.
Losing a quid he can handle. But if I put on a pony, every race, and keep winning, every race, he's basically paying me to be a customer. There is no fucking vig, he's consistently and repeatedly giving more money to me than he's receiving.
That's bad business.
I think there are already companies doing that for sports betting
There are. Betfair is the market leader in the UK.
Remember the company that wanted to make a business out of home delivery of pet food and even aired super bowl commercials?
No. Was it this one? https://www.petplanet.co.uk/se...
This one? https://fetch.co.uk/
Maybe this one? https://www.zooplus.co.uk/
Perhaps one of these?
https://www.bitiba.co.uk/
https://www.pet-supermarket.co...
https://www.monsterpetsupplies...
Or maybe there is a market there, and well run companies with appropriate business understanding can sustainably meet customer needs and make a profit by servicing it.
Much like the film market. People want to watch films, someone offered a deal that let them see a lot of films very cheaply, they got excited about it and the media noticed lots of excited people.
If anything the unsustainable business model merely increased the media interest. People like a bit of drama, like a popular service predictably breaking.
I fail entirely to see the link between watching films and shovelling butter slathered popcorn.
I watch over a dozen movies every month and I haven't eaten popcorn for over two decades.
My choice of where and how to watch films includes cost, availability, convenience and other factors. Being able to see films in a cinema for less than the cost of my TV movie channel subscription would indeed be highly attractive, entirely rational and completely unlinked to anything you could describe as 'greed'.
So no, "the Greedy American" didn't kill it. The stupid, unaffordable and unsustainable business model killed it.
Play counter-strike, get random 'loot'. Use it as a stake in an online casino, trying to win a specific digital item.
Your game playing skill has fuck all to do with the subsequent gambling.
Lets hope he wasn't there, if his perception of Thailand is that you only go there to fuck children.
It's not a healthy worldview and does make me wonder why that's his instinctive thought.
She's permabanned from Twitter, if that gives you any idea; that's not easy to achieve.
You're shitting me. It's fucking trivial to achieve. Just tweet anything coming out of California but change the word 'white' to 'black' or 'jew'. Instant fucking ban.
It's still arguably better than any other EV on the market.
Everything is arguable, but only a total fuckwit would try that argument.
It doesn't fucking exist, ergo it's infinitely worse than every other EV on the market.
His experience matches mine. I have halogen spotlights in the kitchen that are older than Slashdot and none of them have failed.
I own multiple LED torches and none of them have ever failed. But I buy solid titanium ones, they probably have higher grade circuitry.
The companies have to manage and pay for the servers and infrastructure that keeps all of that running, which gives them the power to decide what they want on their platforms. Is it censoring? Yes, but its not much different from a business owner kicking you out of their shop for cursing up a storm
At the moment the companies are not liable for the comments published on their sites. If they're going to silence legal comments from some people but not others then they're editorialising and that needs to make them liable for the comments they editorially choose to allow.
So when some man hating piece of shit posts #killallmen Twitter should be liable for inciting violence, breaching hate speech laws and breaching the Communications Act 2003, prosecuted, fined and shutdown.
Sorry but either you editorialise or you don't. At the moment they're getting away with acting as editors but without the liability, and that's fucking wrong.
Hmm. Lets just explore for a moment who is demanding racial segregation in the US.
http://www.spiked-online.com/n...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.thecollegefix.com/...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/5...
https://www.washingtonexaminer...
Are those "rich reichtard nazis"? I'm not familiar with the term, so I'll have to assume so for the moment.
No. She keeps it in private, because she's a manipulative control freak that lacks leadership, negotiation skills and integrity.
That's a long rant from a racist that lacks the self awareness to understand just how much he has in common with the behaviours he's berating.
Erm. You don't host your own cloud?
Come on, get with it.
Believing in invisible pink unicorns and having terrible fashion sense shouldn't bar someone from returning home.
For example, if they are outside the U.S. then under what law are they operating?
They're not outside the US. The person they're violating is.
Whether the finger they just inserted leaves the US when it enters the body of the person being searched might be an interesting court case.
Not only did you comically try and use wikipedia as a source of authority, the wikipedia article you linked even supports the person to whom you replied.
Anyway, he used the term 'begs the question' not 'begging the question'. His usage was correct. You're a twat, and insulting people isn't immature.
Or a gay person in Russia.
Being gay isn't illegal in Russia. Only promotion of homosexuality.
Or someone without a porn license in the UK.
So the entire population of the UK then.
Sorry but your comparisons are a fucking long way away from the racist seizing of land.
Which is kind of stupid. A head-on collision with a closing speed well in excess of 100mph without seatbelts is going to result in drastically different body positions to ones that were held in place.
You set up an online casino in which people use real money to play but get paid out in digital artwork.
If I could get something that tastes like schnapps and didn't make me drunk or fat I'd drink a hell of a lot of it.
It's mostly the sugar content that puts me off.
I suspect it's a reference to this:
https://www.berkeleyside.com/2...
Whether Clanton votes Democrat or not we'll just have to guess.
Their speech gave them the power and silent acceptance of the people to implement their final solution.
No. Their speech gave them the power, but their actions to quell dissent forced the silence of the people.
All of that happened many years before they adopted their final solution.
This lesson is the reason we are so careful with speech now.
This inability to learn the lesson is why you're fucking up so badly on protecting speech now.
Protect the speech that disagrees, for it is the primary defence against authoritarianism.
I do wonder what they teach to children in the other side of the last war
Well, if you mean Germany, they teach the things that you don't understand, like the real reason the Nazis came to power, why people welcomed them, how they then implemented an oppressive regime and why people didn't feel able to protest against it.
They also teach a scary amount of guilt, which I do find disconcerting.
If your opinion is shared by the neo-nazi's, and they say you're the savior of the white race.... chances are you're a fucking neo-nazi.
Chances are that you're not, and further evidence would be required before it would be reasonable to treat you as though you were.
Guilt by association is fucking reprehensible and a tool of oppressive regimes. Like the nazis.
Oh, wait..