You might as well compare 180,000 annual lung cancer deaths to 9/11.
Not likely. 9/11 was a one-off suicide attack by irrational religious fundamentalists. It probably wasn't even all that preventable.
Out of 180,000 lung cancer deaths a year an estimated 85% are caused by tobacco use. Considering that a simple law outlawing the sale of tobacco could save upwards of 153,000 people a year (that's 51 9/11's a year) from an early death, I would say that lung cancer deaths are much more tragic than 9/11.
I dislike smokers as well... But criminalising tobacco will just create a black market for it. Its an addictive product. Part of the reason smokers are so annoying is that the length they will go to in order to get and defend their fix.
If I recall, the previous crash has been linked to a bad angle of attack sensor. This sensor is only used by a new stall protection feature in the 737 Max. When it fails, the stall protection algorithm thinks the plane is stuck in a nose up orientation, and tries to force the nose down... into the ground.
There are several things that should happen:
1. Interim corrective action. Disable stall protection on all 737 Max aircraft.
My first thought as well, but apparently the engine nacelles have been moved further along the wing and higher so that the risk of stalls have increased. That's why the MCAS (anti-stall) system was introduced in the 737 MAX. If this can't be corrected to the satisfaction of the CAA and others, the type may have to be withdrawn, at least until it's re-engineered.
Here's an idea for starters: For each incoming call that has misrepresented caller ID information, you get $10 off of that month's phone bill.
Why don't you just do what the rest of the world has done and make a law stating that any phone company allowing a spoofed phone number will be charged $10,000 per incident. You'll find that spoofing rates drop to almost 0 after that.
You still get spam calls, but even then they're minimal over here.
To me, I just don't see how an ApppleTV service can gain much traction. Even with some original content, they are competing against a lot of huge players now, including Amazon and Netflix, with huge original content productions underway. Apple will be very much at the mercy of whatever content they can pay to acquire for the site... maybe Apple is willing to sink a few billion into trying to make it work but I don't see even that being viable long term.
Apple's track record of breaking into established markets is not good. They've been trying the Apple TV thing for ages and it's gained zero traction, a streaming service adds almost no value and would compete with Amazon and Netflix which work on a myriad of different devices.
Beyond this, there's a reason Netflix and Amazon are investing hugely in original content. Its because they can't rely on other people's content any more. More and more of it is being snapped up by Disney and they're already planning their own streaming services and started removing their content from other streaming services. It may not be a question of how much Apple will pay for access to content... but even if Apple can pay. As much as I enjoy the 90's kitsch of Gerry Anderson's Space Precinct, you can't make a service out of old content that can be licensed to anyone.
Won't stop Apple from throwing billions at it though.
This type of 2FA relies on the two factors being (1) something you have, and (2) something you know. In the case of Chip and PIN, the chip (embedded in the card) is something you have, and the PIN is something you know. The orthogonality of these two factors means scenarios which result in the loss of one are unlikely to result in the loss of the other, and vice versa. Even if someone steals the card, they cannot use it because you have not revealed our PIN. Even if you tell someone your PIN, they cannot use it without physical possession of the card.
This new card they're trying changes the two factors to two things that you have. That makes fraud far more likely, because things which result in the loss of one are likely to result in the loss of the other. If you lose the card, a thief may be able to lift your fingerprint off the card itself. If someone dies and a person runs across the body, they have access to both the finger and the card.
That's really the whole point of 2FA. It's not "throw a couple roadblocks in the way of thieves and hope one of the works." It's designing the two roadblocks so there's minimal intersection of their weaknesses. Switching it to two physical factors results in a system that's not much more secure than having just a single factor.
Further more, biometrics are terrible for authentication, they're better for identification.
Plus this will not be liked with couples who share bank cards (happens more than you'd think as joint accounts are a PITA).
But lets not kid ourselves here, this move by Natwest was not for security, the contactless transceiver still sends everything on the front of your card to whatever asks for it, it's a gimmick to retain customers in a very competitive market that's entering a recession. The "challenger banks" are really scaring the old guard of banking, this is just them trying to stay relevant without addressing the reasons why customers are flocking to banks like Monza or Starling.
Contactless is a hell of a lot faster. In some places, this matters a lot: it has seriously shortened the lines in office cafeterias, and in places like the London Underground where you can travel with a contactless debit card, adding a PIN terminal to the turnstiles would have resulted in nightmare congestion.
Erm no, the Oyster card did that, not the contactless card. Before the Oyster card, we had paper tickets with a mag stripe... Hell we still have those as I only go into London 3-4 times a year, like many people who live and work in Berks or Hants.
All a contractless card has done is introduce a new, gaping security hole into our lives. The specification for both the Mastercard and Visa system sends your name, card number and expiry date in encryption so weak it may as well be clear text. It will send this information to any terminal that asks for it, PIN or otherwise. Basically it's trivial to stand in on a busy street and collect enough card data to make thousands of small transactions online.
Hence why I disable the contacless part when I first get a card (via a Stanley knife used to sever the induction loop, no loop, no transceiver). Zero benefits lost, huge security hole closed.
From a legal standpoint Hitler was duly elected and became the dictator of Germany via legal means. He then instituted an immoral but totally legal program of attempted genocide of a whole people.
That is a bit of a misnomer.
Hitler wasn't legitimately elected, he just wanted it to look that way. The Nazis had their SA stormtroopers (A.K.A. Brown Shirts) literally stand over voters in booths to ensure they voted correctly. Hitler and the Nazi's rise to power was a massive usurpation of democracy, not a failing of it.
magsafe has saved my laptop from death countless dozens of times. unless they bring back magsafe i will only be buying used macbooks... which also have good keyboards.
I've never had a "magsafe" and do you know how many laptops I've lost to standard power connectors?
None... Not a single one.
Do you know how?
1, I'm not a complete klutz who doesn't watch where they're going.
2. I have sufficient motor control that when I feel enough pressure to move a 2KG laptop on my body I can stop.
3. I actually place cables out of the way to begin with.
"Hard brexit" just means "no deal brexit" which is what the UK citizenry voted for in the referendum.
No they didn't. They were told they could eat their cake and have it - get the benefits of membership without the costs and the obligations.
I lost count of how many times I heard "The Germans will still want to sell their cars, the French will still want to sell their wine" and shit like that.
And the riposte to that is "The French and Germans know we won't be able to afford it after Brexit anyway".
The EU wasn't going to negotiate at all until Article 50 was triggered.
From a US viewpoint, it sounds like the Leave campaign expected to be able to retain all the benefits of being in the EU, while only giving up the parts of membership that they didn't like. And they expected the EU to negotiate on their terms, and give them everything they wanted. And then after the referendum, they found out that's not how the real world works.
That is dead on.
They wanted to have their cake and thought they'd be able to eat it as well.
And as a result we're being held hostage by a small number who have got what they want and are willing to drag the whole country into hell with them to keep it.
Customers are a privilege too not a right or a cost.
Well...yes and no.
I've fired more than a few customers who were, for one reason or another, too much trouble to work with. I never missed their business and wouldn't take them back even if they offered to pay double.
The fact is that the customer isn't always right.
This.
I live in the UK (originally Australian) and over here we don't enforce customer service, it's reciprocal. This means if you want good customer service, you be a good customer (and vice versa, if you are a bad customer, you'll get bad customer service). We don't treat service staff as menial labour beneath our notice, someone who brings you a meal or takes your order is a person and should be treated the same as any other person. Because we don't have a tipping culture, this means our service staff are not obliged to give you false service, instead we rely on the fact that most people have some pride in themselves but this also means that they don't have to suffer arseholes gladly... so if you're an arsehole expect to be treated like one.
The customer isn't always right, more often than not the customer is a whiny little bitch... If you're offended by this chances are you are that kind of person.
A lot of people think it's a good thing to bring back national service... I say we should make everyone work in retail for a year, that way you find out just how stupid and self centred the general public are. Within a generation we could have that fixed.
I cannot think of a single scene where she is "kicked down". We see a series of scenes from her past where she failed; sometimes men were there and sometimes not. There is a line like "women could not fly combat missions, so the only way we could contribute was by being experimental test pilots"; if that fits your comment, then you and I will likely never agree on anything.
You have to remember that the people who are bashing this film are not rational people. It's not the film that's pushing an agenda, its the people claiming it is that are pushing their own agenda and they are also the real snowflakes.
To the rest of us it's just a film. They can be good or bad for a variety of reasons. Personally I've been turned off the MCU because the films are just more of the same genericness combined with millions of dollars in CGI. I'll wait for this one to come out on In-Flight Entertainment because it sounds like a film where you switch off your brain to enjoy it and nowhere is better for than than FL380. Nothing to do with any perceived threat to my manhood (which is secure enough that I could drive a bright pink Micra).
You know Fox is basically controlled opposition and that any time one of their, in many cases real conservative hosts, start talking too close to the core about what's wrong they get shit-canned right? Fox news is right-wing news with a restraining bolt.
No, fox news is an unashamed propaganda channel. Their job is expressly to lie to their viewers and readers in order to push a specific viewpoint.
And I'm not an American... I'm worldly enough to know when someone is obviously lying and Fox News meets that criteria, they don't even bother hiding it any more. Their "reports" are going beyond mere exaggeration, often into the territory of complete fabrication. Even when easily observed facts and evidence are clearly arrayed against them they'll still tell you water isn't wet with a straight face. None of the other mainstream US channels are nearly as bad although I wouldn't class any as reliable, none of them are as bold as Fox news when it comes to pissing on your back and telling you it's raining.
Fox News is on the same level as Russia Today. It's entirely a political mouth piece, the only difference between Fox and RT is that Fox's viewers actually pay to be lied to (fair enough, that kind of fantasy indulgence will cost you £300 an hour in London).
Before you ask, the number one factor in news source trustworthiness is an organisations ability to issue errata and retractions. Fox news will only issue a retraction when ordered by a court... and even then they'll try as hard as they can to bury it.
What is happening, is that there is decreasing value in getting the latest model. It makes a lot more sense to wait three years before getting a new phone than it did before... on top of higher prices, people are waiting.
It will be interesting to see what this new slower wave of smart phone replacements as primary market looks like... will phone makers start to not release new models quite so often?
And now from the non-Apple fanboy newsdesk.
Phones haven't really increased in price if we exclude Apple and even Apple keeps a low end (read last years) phone at a lower than insane price. However for normal people, prices have remained fairly stagnant over the last few years for average phones. I paid £270 for my Nexus 5x over 3 years ago and about the same for my Nokia 7.1 a bit over 3 months ago. The only reason I bought the Nokia 7.1 was because my venerable Nexus 5x sadly died.
And that, ladies and gentlemen is why phone sales are falling. The phones are now good enough to keep for a few years until they die. It's become as mature as the laptop market, there is no real impetus to upgrade any more. New releases are slightly more powerful, each OS update only provides minor benefits that are invisible to the average user. People just can't justify shelling out 300 quid a year for a new phone. People are now replacing their phones either when a 2 year contract expires or via attrition.
when every penny counts you can't afford to have some parasite company siphoning off your money because you needed groceries.
This is backwards. Companies want to eliminate cash because the security problems and handling issues raise costs, which leads to higher prices.
Using debt and credit cards actually increases prices because you're adding additional middlemen into the equation. A card transaction has a minimum of 5 parties:
Parties 2-4 will each be taking a piece of the transaction. They've made rules and in come countries, laws, that the merchant has to hide this cost from the purchaser. So the business a merchant does on card, the more they have to raise their prices to compensate for the additional percentages being removed from the sale. Such percentages can be up to 6% of the transaction amount, not including the cost of terminal or line rental.
Regardless, this is about fake accounts. Nothing wrong with banning fake accounts.
Its worse than that. The banned accounts weren't simply spewing hate, after all being a hateful little twat is FREEZE PEACH.
Their big problem is that they created tamer pages to begin with then when they'd reached enough users they changed the name and ramped up the hateful content. Ultimately that was the reason they were banned.
I.E. If you created a page called "British Military Humour" (despite never having even been within 5 miles of a British military installation, making you what we call a "Walt") and started off with a few risky but relatively harmless memes... When you've got enough followers you change it to "British people for the death of all Arabs and Jews" and started flooding it with InfoWars-esque conspiracy theories, then you cross the line and get your account deleted. That is pretty much what happened here.
I do not mean to imply, good sir, that you are a bigot or a Walt. It's just an example.
Hate groups in the UK use this kind of bait and switch because we're generally not bigots. So hate groups find it hard to recruit and need to try to lure people in by pretending they aren't hate groups, then closing the trap when it's too late.
That's not the reason socialism fails. Socialism fails because it rewards non-achievers the same as the achievers.
Please point to an actual "socialist" country that actually rewards everyone the same.
That's not a "no true Scottsman" about socialism. It's demonstrating that your theory lacks evidence.
Well not even Communism's stated goal is to "reward everyone equally", communism is owning the means of production. That means that proceeds of production go back to community that produced them. Socialism isn't communism. Socialism is a catch all word for anything that is publicly owned, this covers everything from a municipal police force downwards to actual communism/agrarianism.
The Right of stupid people to say what they like? Yeah, I think that that fits. Note that once you've decided that stopping stupid people from saying whatever they like, it's pretty easy to expand the definition (gradually, mind you!) of "stupid people" till the government is restricting anything they don't want to hear in public.
And remember, you may agree with the gov at first, but sooner or later, their definition of "stupid people saying the wrong thing(s) in public" will include things YOU want to say in public....
No, I'm not anti-vax. I wish that measles had been available when *I* was an infant. Alas, I was four or five before it was developed, much less available to the general public, much less mandatory.
Nor am I pro-stupid-people. I am, however, rather fond of the First Amendment. And restricting speech I disagree with isn't one of the exceptions listed in the First....
However restricting speech that represents a clear and present danger has never been part of the first amendment... though I'm not about to claim to be smart (dumb?) enough to try to apply that outside of the most blindingly obvious examples.
In this case, anti-vax is essentially fraud. As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain". Surely I'm not the only one who's noticed a lot of these Anti-vaxxers are selling something (at least in Australia and the UK).
As far as I know, your 1st Amendment has never protected fraudulent expression.
Problem with DST is that people don't understand the consequences of their choices. An oft heard argument is that one wants to keep DST year round, because they're a night dweller and they like the extra hour of light at the end of the day in winter too.
What they don't understand is there is also an extra hour of dark at the start of the day. They'll have to get up an hour earlier in winter because of permanent DST. Consequently they'll have to go to bed an hour earlier. Exactly the opposite a night dweller would want.
Personally I don't care if we abandon DST. I live in the Netherlands, which is quite northerly. We get about 8 hours of sunlight in winter, and 16 hours in summer. But please for the love of god don't establish DST year round. I'd like to have the sun up before 9:30 please.
This, GMT and DST in the UK are designed to maximise the amount of daylight available for work and play after work (in the summer). Here in lovely Berkshire in June the sun is up from 5:00 to 22:00 and in January from 7:30 to 16:30. Adopting GMT the year round means that light goes from 4:00 to 21:00 in the summer, adopting BST year round means that daylight is from 8:30 to 17:30.
As it stands in winter I'm already leaving work in darkness and barely coming to work in daylight... Also I've lived in a place with no daylight savings (Western Australia), having the sun up at 4:00 when you're trying to sleep is a right pain in the arse. I, like most people can't do anything with an extra hour before work but love that extra hour of sleep I get.
That's why the UK was so vulnerable to brexit. People really thought it was like some kind of club they could just cancel their membership of and walk away. Someone guy on the TV was talking about how upset he was because he thought that a few days after the vote the UK would be out - he didn't even read the official Leave campaign's leaflet apparently.
Which one?
I read both the Leave.eu and Vote Leave campaign leaflets. Neither actually gave an indication of what post Brexit UK would actually look like, what plans were for economic stability, trade relations with out largest trading partner or even what kind of Brexit they wanted. All they said was "Take BACK Control", a bunch of misleading figures (oft painted on the side of a bus) and allusions to illegal immigrants.
low cost markets tend to be cheaper than those in the generally more expensive places.
Film at 11.
I'd say that is the case for India... But not the trend. Plenty of developing countries like the Philippines, Colombia and United States that have significantly higher charges for data than developed countries. OTOH developed countries are not necessarily expensive, here in the UK I can get unlimited calls, texts and 1.5 GB of data for £6 per month and that is far from the cheapest plan I know of (I chose a more reliable provider over a cheap plans). You can easily get 30 GB for £20 and I've seen an unlimited data plan for £27. All but the last of those prices are off contract.
Slashdot Mirror
You might as well compare 180,000 annual lung cancer deaths to 9/11.
Not likely. 9/11 was a one-off suicide attack by irrational religious fundamentalists. It probably wasn't even all that preventable.
Out of 180,000 lung cancer deaths a year an estimated 85% are caused by tobacco use. Considering that a simple law outlawing the sale of tobacco could save upwards of 153,000 people a year (that's 51 9/11's a year) from an early death, I would say that lung cancer deaths are much more tragic than 9/11.
I dislike smokers as well... But criminalising tobacco will just create a black market for it. Its an addictive product. Part of the reason smokers are so annoying is that the length they will go to in order to get and defend their fix.
If I recall, the previous crash has been linked to a bad angle of attack sensor. This sensor is only used by a new stall protection feature in the 737 Max. When it fails, the stall protection algorithm thinks the plane is stuck in a nose up orientation, and tries to force the nose down... into the ground.
There are several things that should happen:
1. Interim corrective action. Disable stall protection on all 737 Max aircraft.
My first thought as well, but apparently the engine nacelles have been moved further along the wing and higher so that the risk of stalls have increased. That's why the MCAS (anti-stall) system was introduced in the 737 MAX. If this can't be corrected to the satisfaction of the CAA and others, the type may have to be withdrawn, at least until it's re-engineered.
Here's an idea for starters: For each incoming call that has misrepresented caller ID information, you get $10 off of that month's phone bill.
Why don't you just do what the rest of the world has done and make a law stating that any phone company allowing a spoofed phone number will be charged $10,000 per incident. You'll find that spoofing rates drop to almost 0 after that.
You still get spam calls, but even then they're minimal over here.
To me, I just don't see how an ApppleTV service can gain much traction. Even with some original content, they are competing against a lot of huge players now, including Amazon and Netflix, with huge original content productions underway. Apple will be very much at the mercy of whatever content they can pay to acquire for the site... maybe Apple is willing to sink a few billion into trying to make it work but I don't see even that being viable long term.
Apple's track record of breaking into established markets is not good. They've been trying the Apple TV thing for ages and it's gained zero traction, a streaming service adds almost no value and would compete with Amazon and Netflix which work on a myriad of different devices.
Beyond this, there's a reason Netflix and Amazon are investing hugely in original content. Its because they can't rely on other people's content any more. More and more of it is being snapped up by Disney and they're already planning their own streaming services and started removing their content from other streaming services. It may not be a question of how much Apple will pay for access to content... but even if Apple can pay. As much as I enjoy the 90's kitsch of Gerry Anderson's Space Precinct, you can't make a service out of old content that can be licensed to anyone.
Won't stop Apple from throwing billions at it though.
This type of 2FA relies on the two factors being (1) something you have, and (2) something you know. In the case of Chip and PIN, the chip (embedded in the card) is something you have, and the PIN is something you know. The orthogonality of these two factors means scenarios which result in the loss of one are unlikely to result in the loss of the other, and vice versa. Even if someone steals the card, they cannot use it because you have not revealed our PIN. Even if you tell someone your PIN, they cannot use it without physical possession of the card.
This new card they're trying changes the two factors to two things that you have. That makes fraud far more likely, because things which result in the loss of one are likely to result in the loss of the other. If you lose the card, a thief may be able to lift your fingerprint off the card itself. If someone dies and a person runs across the body, they have access to both the finger and the card.
That's really the whole point of 2FA. It's not "throw a couple roadblocks in the way of thieves and hope one of the works." It's designing the two roadblocks so there's minimal intersection of their weaknesses. Switching it to two physical factors results in a system that's not much more secure than having just a single factor.
Further more, biometrics are terrible for authentication, they're better for identification.
Plus this will not be liked with couples who share bank cards (happens more than you'd think as joint accounts are a PITA).
But lets not kid ourselves here, this move by Natwest was not for security, the contactless transceiver still sends everything on the front of your card to whatever asks for it, it's a gimmick to retain customers in a very competitive market that's entering a recession. The "challenger banks" are really scaring the old guard of banking, this is just them trying to stay relevant without addressing the reasons why customers are flocking to banks like Monza or Starling.
Contactless is a hell of a lot faster. In some places, this matters a lot: it has seriously shortened the lines in office cafeterias, and in places like the London Underground where you can travel with a contactless debit card, adding a PIN terminal to the turnstiles would have resulted in nightmare congestion.
Erm no, the Oyster card did that, not the contactless card. Before the Oyster card, we had paper tickets with a mag stripe... Hell we still have those as I only go into London 3-4 times a year, like many people who live and work in Berks or Hants. All a contractless card has done is introduce a new, gaping security hole into our lives. The specification for both the Mastercard and Visa system sends your name, card number and expiry date in encryption so weak it may as well be clear text. It will send this information to any terminal that asks for it, PIN or otherwise. Basically it's trivial to stand in on a busy street and collect enough card data to make thousands of small transactions online. Hence why I disable the contacless part when I first get a card (via a Stanley knife used to sever the induction loop, no loop, no transceiver). Zero benefits lost, huge security hole closed.
From a legal standpoint Hitler was duly elected and became the dictator of Germany via legal means. He then instituted an immoral but totally legal program of attempted genocide of a whole people.
That is a bit of a misnomer.
Hitler wasn't legitimately elected, he just wanted it to look that way. The Nazis had their SA stormtroopers (A.K.A. Brown Shirts) literally stand over voters in booths to ensure they voted correctly. Hitler and the Nazi's rise to power was a massive usurpation of democracy, not a failing of it.
magsafe has saved my laptop from death countless dozens of times. unless they bring back magsafe i will only be buying used macbooks ... which also have good keyboards.
I've never had a "magsafe" and do you know how many laptops I've lost to standard power connectors?
None... Not a single one.
Do you know how?
1, I'm not a complete klutz who doesn't watch where they're going.
2. I have sufficient motor control that when I feel enough pressure to move a 2KG laptop on my body I can stop.
3. I actually place cables out of the way to begin with.
No they didn't. They were told they could eat their cake and have it - get the benefits of membership without the costs and the obligations.
I lost count of how many times I heard "The Germans will still want to sell their cars, the French will still want to sell their wine" and shit like that.
And the riposte to that is "The French and Germans know we won't be able to afford it after Brexit anyway".
The EU wasn't going to negotiate at all until Article 50 was triggered.
From a US viewpoint, it sounds like the Leave campaign expected to be able to retain all the benefits of being in the EU, while only giving up the parts of membership that they didn't like. And they expected the EU to negotiate on their terms, and give them everything they wanted. And then after the referendum, they found out that's not how the real world works.
That is dead on.
They wanted to have their cake and thought they'd be able to eat it as well.
And as a result we're being held hostage by a small number who have got what they want and are willing to drag the whole country into hell with them to keep it.
Customers are a privilege too not a right or a cost.
Well...yes and no.
I've fired more than a few customers who were, for one reason or another, too much trouble to work with. I never missed their business and wouldn't take them back even if they offered to pay double.
The fact is that the customer isn't always right.
This.
I live in the UK (originally Australian) and over here we don't enforce customer service, it's reciprocal. This means if you want good customer service, you be a good customer (and vice versa, if you are a bad customer, you'll get bad customer service). We don't treat service staff as menial labour beneath our notice, someone who brings you a meal or takes your order is a person and should be treated the same as any other person. Because we don't have a tipping culture, this means our service staff are not obliged to give you false service, instead we rely on the fact that most people have some pride in themselves but this also means that they don't have to suffer arseholes gladly... so if you're an arsehole expect to be treated like one.
The customer isn't always right, more often than not the customer is a whiny little bitch... If you're offended by this chances are you are that kind of person.
A lot of people think it's a good thing to bring back national service... I say we should make everyone work in retail for a year, that way you find out just how stupid and self centred the general public are. Within a generation we could have that fixed.
I cannot think of a single scene where she is "kicked down". We see a series of scenes from her past where she failed; sometimes men were there and sometimes not. There is a line like "women could not fly combat missions, so the only way we could contribute was by being experimental test pilots"; if that fits your comment, then you and I will likely never agree on anything.
You have to remember that the people who are bashing this film are not rational people. It's not the film that's pushing an agenda, its the people claiming it is that are pushing their own agenda and they are also the real snowflakes.
To the rest of us it's just a film. They can be good or bad for a variety of reasons. Personally I've been turned off the MCU because the films are just more of the same genericness combined with millions of dollars in CGI. I'll wait for this one to come out on In-Flight Entertainment because it sounds like a film where you switch off your brain to enjoy it and nowhere is better for than than FL380. Nothing to do with any perceived threat to my manhood (which is secure enough that I could drive a bright pink Micra).
One more reason I'm glad this movie has practically no chance for a sequel. Even on paper it barely broke even...
In terms of Hollywood Accounting, that means it made millions. On paper it has to lose money so they don't have to pay tax.
You know Fox is basically controlled opposition and that any time one of their, in many cases real conservative hosts, start talking too close to the core about what's wrong they get shit-canned right? Fox news is right-wing news with a restraining bolt.
No, fox news is an unashamed propaganda channel. Their job is expressly to lie to their viewers and readers in order to push a specific viewpoint.
And I'm not an American... I'm worldly enough to know when someone is obviously lying and Fox News meets that criteria, they don't even bother hiding it any more. Their "reports" are going beyond mere exaggeration, often into the territory of complete fabrication. Even when easily observed facts and evidence are clearly arrayed against them they'll still tell you water isn't wet with a straight face. None of the other mainstream US channels are nearly as bad although I wouldn't class any as reliable, none of them are as bold as Fox news when it comes to pissing on your back and telling you it's raining.
Fox News is on the same level as Russia Today. It's entirely a political mouth piece, the only difference between Fox and RT is that Fox's viewers actually pay to be lied to (fair enough, that kind of fantasy indulgence will cost you £300 an hour in London).
Before you ask, the number one factor in news source trustworthiness is an organisations ability to issue errata and retractions. Fox news will only issue a retraction when ordered by a court... and even then they'll try as hard as they can to bury it.
"White fragility" == reacting appropriately to being told you are a racist when you know you are not.
If you know you're not a racist... you've got no fear. Anyone who calls you a racist when you're not one just looks like an idiot.
So it's not "fragility".
"White fragility" == the fear that someone, somewhere who is not white and male is being treated the same as a white male.
BTW, I believe in white privilege. Its awesome, so awesome I believe everyone should have it regardless of skin colour.
It's not like fewer people want smartphones...
What is happening, is that there is decreasing value in getting the latest model. It makes a lot more sense to wait three years before getting a new phone than it did before... on top of higher prices, people are waiting.
It will be interesting to see what this new slower wave of smart phone replacements as primary market looks like... will phone makers start to not release new models quite so often?
And now from the non-Apple fanboy newsdesk.
Phones haven't really increased in price if we exclude Apple and even Apple keeps a low end (read last years) phone at a lower than insane price. However for normal people, prices have remained fairly stagnant over the last few years for average phones. I paid £270 for my Nexus 5x over 3 years ago and about the same for my Nokia 7.1 a bit over 3 months ago. The only reason I bought the Nokia 7.1 was because my venerable Nexus 5x sadly died.
And that, ladies and gentlemen is why phone sales are falling. The phones are now good enough to keep for a few years until they die. It's become as mature as the laptop market, there is no real impetus to upgrade any more. New releases are slightly more powerful, each OS update only provides minor benefits that are invisible to the average user. People just can't justify shelling out 300 quid a year for a new phone. People are now replacing their phones either when a 2 year contract expires or via attrition.
when every penny counts you can't afford to have some parasite company siphoning off your money because you needed groceries.
This is backwards. Companies want to eliminate cash because the security problems and handling issues raise costs, which leads to higher prices.
Using debt and credit cards actually increases prices because you're adding additional middlemen into the equation. A card transaction has a minimum of 5 parties:
1. Purchaser.
2. Purchaser's bank.
3. Credit network (Visa/MC/AMEX).
4. Merchant's bank.
5. Merchant.
Parties 2-4 will each be taking a piece of the transaction. They've made rules and in come countries, laws, that the merchant has to hide this cost from the purchaser. So the business a merchant does on card, the more they have to raise their prices to compensate for the additional percentages being removed from the sale. Such percentages can be up to 6% of the transaction amount, not including the cost of terminal or line rental.
Regardless, this is about fake accounts. Nothing wrong with banning fake accounts.
Its worse than that. The banned accounts weren't simply spewing hate, after all being a hateful little twat is FREEZE PEACH.
Their big problem is that they created tamer pages to begin with then when they'd reached enough users they changed the name and ramped up the hateful content. Ultimately that was the reason they were banned.
I.E. If you created a page called "British Military Humour" (despite never having even been within 5 miles of a British military installation, making you what we call a "Walt") and started off with a few risky but relatively harmless memes... When you've got enough followers you change it to "British people for the death of all Arabs and Jews" and started flooding it with InfoWars-esque conspiracy theories, then you cross the line and get your account deleted. That is pretty much what happened here.
I do not mean to imply, good sir, that you are a bigot or a Walt. It's just an example.
Hate groups in the UK use this kind of bait and switch because we're generally not bigots. So hate groups find it hard to recruit and need to try to lure people in by pretending they aren't hate groups, then closing the trap when it's too late.
That's not the reason socialism fails. Socialism fails because it rewards non-achievers the same as the achievers.
Please point to an actual "socialist" country that actually rewards everyone the same.
That's not a "no true Scottsman" about socialism. It's demonstrating that your theory lacks evidence.
Well not even Communism's stated goal is to "reward everyone equally", communism is owning the means of production. That means that proceeds of production go back to community that produced them. Socialism isn't communism. Socialism is a catch all word for anything that is publicly owned, this covers everything from a municipal police force downwards to actual communism/agrarianism.
The Right of stupid people to say what they like? Yeah, I think that that fits. Note that once you've decided that stopping stupid people from saying whatever they like, it's pretty easy to expand the definition (gradually, mind you!) of "stupid people" till the government is restricting anything they don't want to hear in public.
And remember, you may agree with the gov at first, but sooner or later, their definition of "stupid people saying the wrong thing(s) in public" will include things YOU want to say in public....
No, I'm not anti-vax. I wish that measles had been available when *I* was an infant. Alas, I was four or five before it was developed, much less available to the general public, much less mandatory.
Nor am I pro-stupid-people. I am, however, rather fond of the First Amendment. And restricting speech I disagree with isn't one of the exceptions listed in the First....
However restricting speech that represents a clear and present danger has never been part of the first amendment... though I'm not about to claim to be smart (dumb?) enough to try to apply that outside of the most blindingly obvious examples.
In this case, anti-vax is essentially fraud. As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain". Surely I'm not the only one who's noticed a lot of these Anti-vaxxers are selling something (at least in Australia and the UK).
As far as I know, your 1st Amendment has never protected fraudulent expression.
Problem with DST is that people don't understand the consequences of their choices. An oft heard argument is that one wants to keep DST year round, because they're a night dweller and they like the extra hour of light at the end of the day in winter too.
What they don't understand is there is also an extra hour of dark at the start of the day. They'll have to get up an hour earlier in winter because of permanent DST. Consequently they'll have to go to bed an hour earlier. Exactly the opposite a night dweller would want.
Personally I don't care if we abandon DST. I live in the Netherlands, which is quite northerly. We get about 8 hours of sunlight in winter, and 16 hours in summer. But please for the love of god don't establish DST year round. I'd like to have the sun up before 9:30 please.
This, GMT and DST in the UK are designed to maximise the amount of daylight available for work and play after work (in the summer). Here in lovely Berkshire in June the sun is up from 5:00 to 22:00 and in January from 7:30 to 16:30. Adopting GMT the year round means that light goes from 4:00 to 21:00 in the summer, adopting BST year round means that daylight is from 8:30 to 17:30.
As it stands in winter I'm already leaving work in darkness and barely coming to work in daylight... Also I've lived in a place with no daylight savings (Western Australia), having the sun up at 4:00 when you're trying to sleep is a right pain in the arse. I, like most people can't do anything with an extra hour before work but love that extra hour of sleep I get.
That's why the UK was so vulnerable to brexit. People really thought it was like some kind of club they could just cancel their membership of and walk away. Someone guy on the TV was talking about how upset he was because he thought that a few days after the vote the UK would be out - he didn't even read the official Leave campaign's leaflet apparently.
Which one?
I read both the Leave.eu and Vote Leave campaign leaflets. Neither actually gave an indication of what post Brexit UK would actually look like, what plans were for economic stability, trade relations with out largest trading partner or even what kind of Brexit they wanted. All they said was "Take BACK Control", a bunch of misleading figures (oft painted on the side of a bus) and allusions to illegal immigrants.
low cost markets tend to be cheaper than those in the generally more expensive places.
Film at 11.
I'd say that is the case for India... But not the trend. Plenty of developing countries like the Philippines, Colombia and United States that have significantly higher charges for data than developed countries. OTOH developed countries are not necessarily expensive, here in the UK I can get unlimited calls, texts and 1.5 GB of data for £6 per month and that is far from the cheapest plan I know of (I chose a more reliable provider over a cheap plans). You can easily get 30 GB for £20 and I've seen an unlimited data plan for £27. All but the last of those prices are off contract.
The exchange rate is about GBP 1.30 to USD 1:00.
Note, the max speed limit in Texas is currently 85 MPH. That's 27 MPH more.
Regardless, it should be the DRIVERS DECISION, not the manufacture. Matters not to me; I'll refrain from purchasing a Volvo for my next vehicle.
Which is your choice.
Volvo have been off my list since they got rid of the manual transmission.
However I was simply pointing out that most models wont even be capable of reaching the limiter and this is merely a PR exercise.
You must have been asleep then. Carry on as you are. I'm sure the nasty "racists" will evaporate after the 2020 election.
Back into their dingy little holes paid for with government money, yes.
Once their hero is soundly defeated they'll go back to watching daytime TV on welfare.