I remember downloading web pages for display for later on my Windows CE Palm-sized PC Cassiopeia e-105 in 1999.
Everything old is new again.
However, unlike WinCE, it will actually work.
Google aren't claiming to have invented anything here, rather just introducing a feature that is new (to modern phone browsers). I can see this as being handy for people who commute, not just because there is little to no reception on the Tube (and spotty at best reception on the train to London) but because once you're in Bank, the towers are so overloaded and modern web pages so bloated that being able to load it from memory is much faster.
Iphone users, you can expect Apple to announce they "invented" something similar in 18-36 months.
Something doesn't seem right here. I live in Summit County, CO for 7 years and no one who lives in Summit County is actually from Summit County, or really even Colorado. Furthermore, even fewer are even year round residents. There's almost no one over the 65 there, the vast majority of the population are younger to early middle age ski bums. The same goes for Eagle County and to some degree Pitkin. Something about the ski bum population is skewing those results.
(On a side note, a former Air Force general, Don Kutyna, who ran the US Space Command for a bit skied nearly every day and he was 70+ at the time. Over at Copper Mountain we had Frank Walters who was 80+ and skied hundreds of days a year.)
OTOH, you've got communities where being under 40 makes you extremely young. The village where I work is surrounded by retirement homes as well as retirees in private residents. Its like god waiting room there. I swear I lower the average age of the village by 23.4 year when I drive into town.
Dare I say it, chances are the old people moved to a warmer climate or where services for the elderly are more readily available. Maybe they moved to be closer to their families. Sounds like you live in a tourist town. You rarely find old people in tourist centres, particularly ones focused around active sports. Sorry, not sorry if this blows a hole in your rant about "ski bums".
It's a reasonable bet that the people with lower life expectancy are probably not voting progressive. They have less money, worse jobs and lower life expectancy. They don't see progressive solutions as being in their service. At best progressives will lecture them about how their jobs aren't coming back, they should learn to code, go to university, and move to the rich enclaves on the coasts. Not that conservatives are any better, but conservatives figure out that it's better to pretend to listen, rather than to lecture those with less money, worse jobs and lower life expectancy on how they are all privileged transphobic racists and deserve their lot because of it.
What absolute bollocks.
You sound like a pompus old imperialist who hasn't realised the world left them behind over a century ago. "Hurmph, the poor are not smart enough to understand anything outside their lives of poverty and neglect. Its a good thing we lords are here to rule over them". I'm surprised that you didn't go onto say that they don't need education, health care and basic rights.
Here in the civilised world, yes, the coal miners did learn other skills. Hell, the plumber I spoke to the other day is quite well clued in on the world. This is the kind of thing that happens when education is available to all.
In the UK, poor people are more likely to vote progressive than rich people because rich people benefit more under conservatives and the poor benefit more under progressives. People who vote for regressive parties tend to be wilfully ignorant. This does not correlate to income one bit. You can be rich, well educated and still a complete ignorant arse. Many UKIP voters are well to do, in fact the party is set up to benefit a few rich, whilst the rest of us would have our future sold down the drain by the likes of UKIP.
Really? A hopeless life? Being forced into a miserable reservation? Stripped of human dignity?
They are not "forced" to live on the reservation. They are US citizens and can live anywhere in the country.
That is a relatively new. Historically they were forced to live on reservations, even the the constitution said they didn't have to, a lot of local laws and local attitudes kept them bottled up. As such they've been separated from American society and culture, it should be little surprise that they've only adopted the worst parts. There will be living native Americans old enough to remember those times.
Besides, you've effectively argued against what the GGP was saying, he's claiming the problems the native Americans are having are genetic... Which is utter bollocks, as you've eluded to, the issues are cultural and American society and government played a key part in creating that culture.
Now the problem of Alcoholism and poor diet is not something restricted to race. Alcoholism and diabetes happens in White, Black, Asian and Hispanic communities as well. The common factor not race, but socio-economic conditions. Alcohol abuse tends to be more prevalent in poorer neighbourhoods. I've seen it all the way from Colombia to the Phillipines to Russia... and Russia is as white as you can get. Even in the US, you'll spot that poor white neighbourhoods have the same alcohol issues as other colours. Same for crime, poor nutrition and other issues.
Well you watched Obama "fix" it and nothing changed for these poor people.
I'd say all we proved is that government is incapable of fixing anything.
I halfway agree in that I think the ACA did not do enough. Roughly 20 million people gained medical coverage of some kind. Given that a significant part of this study revealed healthcare as a contributing factor, I wouldn't be suprised if tens of thousands of lives were saved. The real problem is we need a single payer system like the rest of the developed world, where we would pay about half as much to insure everyone while getting superior medical outcomes. Even trump agrees.
This. The problem the ACA had wasn't Obama, the ACA ended up being almost nothing like what Obama wanted or proposed in the first place. The problem with the ACA is that the Republicans that controlled the house could not allow it to succeed. So it was sabotaged at every opportunity.
Adding to my own post. I'm all in favor of community standards and even community laws that ban behaviours. Even libertarians should be in favor of not interferring with communities that want to regulate themselves. It's a free country. But banning something in someone elses community because you don't like it is something to fear.
This particular judge is overstepping their bounds, I expect Facebook to appeal and win if the decision isn't reversed sooner. This is less of an oppressive government and more of what the Americans would call an "activist judge".
What, or who, defines "hate" speech? I found the above two posts to be funny... but if some hyper-"sensitive" person complained about similar postings (on facebook), would it then be considered hateful? If I posted "Jesus loves you" and 10,000 people reported it as being hateful, would it be removed? Is there an internet vote on each potential post before removal?
Like you, I found the above posts funny.
"Hate" speech is a actually well defined, its centred around the concept of intent. With the above post, the intent was humour. Hate speech requires a clear malicious intent.
Hate speech is not actually a crime, it's a catch all word used to dumb down a very complex legal issue for people who have trouble breathing with their mouths closed. Certainly in the UK you'll never be charged with "hate" crimes, if you are charged the exact nature of the bigotry will be in the accusation (I.E. racism, xenophobia) and it will almost never be for a single comment. In order to be bad enough to be bought before the court, it must be a concerted effort. Usually when we define a "hate" crime in the legal sense, we're talking about a protected attribute like race, religion and gender.
Making a single racist or anti-Semitic comment wont get you dragged up in front of a judge. Repeatedly threatening someone because they're black/Jewish/gay/has ginger hair will.
Now whether FB would remove a post because "hyper-sensitive" people complained. Well that is commonplace, but its nothing to do with the government of any country, rather Facebooks policies and I suspect they have automated it so that if a post gets X reports, it's gone regardless of if it were offensive or not.
Right lads, we can compromise our world wide business or we can pull out of Austria. Hmmmmmm decisions.
A pretty stupid move.
The Austrian court has overstepped their bounds here, but ignoring the ruling just means they'll legally be able to take actions against Facebook in other countries (at the very least, EU wide). I expect Facebook to appeal this decision and to demonstrate the the Austrian court's authority does not extend past Austrian borders.
I'm certain this will be defeated in an appeal (not that you'll hear about it mind you).
Well, unless you like looking like an idiot later on if you're parroting something incorrect...
Whilst this statement is completely true, it's also utterly irrelevant.
We now live in a society that celebrates ignorance and stupidity. Its no longer an insult to be an idiot and become popular to be ignorant. Blindly re-posting an obvious lie is 100% acceptable as along as the lie is popular. Opposing it with fact gets you labelled as "fake" and any number of other disparaging remarks made about your character.
It's become popular to "fat-shame". I have to ask why it's unpopular to "stupid-shame".
Nope, the British don't say "you lost the war", that is poor form and denotes a lack of self respect. What you wrote is yet another American butchering of the Queens English.
There are places in the US where you would make less money working than you would on welfare. And since basically any kind of income can disqualify you from welfare, not only is work discouraged buyt working your way up is discouraged as well. Basically, since welfare isn’t on any kind of sliding scale, it actively discourages working.
You're thinking of UBI as if it were the US's horribly broken welfare programmes. Its designed as a replacement, not an accompaniment for existing programmes.
The idea behind UBI is that everyone gets it. It doesn't matter who you are, everyone receives the same amount as a UBI, it doesn't matter if you're a pauper or a billionaire, everyone gets UBI. That's what the "Universal" part means.
If you want a lifestyle that is beyond what UBI provides, then you have the option to work for additional money, with UBI it becomes impossible for a job to pay less than UBI. The incentive to work is the fact that UBI is not meant to provide a life of luxury, this is what the "Basic" part means.
I'll let you figure out what the "Income" part is on your own.
To be frank, I don't see developed nations remaining developed nations without UBI in the face of increasing automation. If we don't adopt it, we'll end up with a large underclass subsistence farming and having most of the luxuries we take for granted far out of reach... like a developing nation.
Because you don't care to pay on your own — you wish to force others to do it...
You're projecting here.
I want everyone to pay their fair share. Myself included. I pay my taxes because taxes buy civilisation.
Taxes pay for roads. Taxes pay for fire, police and other emergency services. Taxes pay for health care (UK resident here, the NHS costs half as much as American health care) and yes, it also pays for welfare.
I dont mind that my taxes pay for welfare, even though I'm not eligible to claim any for another 4 years. Welfare at the very least keeps the unemployable out of petty crime. So they're siting at home eating ALDI pies and watching daytime television instead of breaking into my home and stealing my television. Welfare bludgers are a very small number of people, but if a quarter of them went out stealing for money, it would increase petty crime significantly. Not because they're so numerous, but because here in the UK it's pretty safe in most places. If I accidentally leave my car unlocked at the local Tesco (as I have done once or twice before) then I'm confident I will come back and still have my laptop in the boot.
I know you're thinking "well durn it, why dontcha just lock up alla da durn theifs". Well there is a simple economic argument for that. It costs £65,000 per prisoner per year. Minimum wage is less than £15,000 per year, welfare is less than that. If we paid them a minimum wage just to keep them out of prison, we're saving money as well as not introducing them to the kind of people we need to keep out of society.
They've found a warm welcome. In a March survey, 68% of Europeans said they would vote yes in a basic-income referendum, up from 64% last year.
I suppose, it depends on how the question is phrased:
Would you like to be given money even if you do not work?
Hell yah!
Would you like to pay higher taxes so that some of it will be given to others even if they do not work?
Hell no!
Once again, you've only demonstrated that you don't understand what UBI is.
Universal Basic Income is granted to every citizen of working age regardless of whether they're working or not. Salaries earned are on top of UBI. You're thinking of UBI in terms of American social security programmes, you need to break that kind of thinking. UBI is meant to replace almost all assistance programs, Also, as you're going to receive UBI if you work, you wont really be paying more tax as you receive the UBI portion tax free.
As we automate more and more jobs, I cant see the developed world staying developed without something pretty much exactly like UBI. The alternative is to keep a large, unemployable population in poverty. At that point, subsistence farms will revert us into developing nations.Of course this kind of rich lording it over the poor is a RWNJ's wet dream.
Germany has never had any problems with overbearing governance, so stop the fear mongering and show me your papers, please.
But this isn't being proposed by teh Ebil Gubbermint, it's being proposed by nice, safe and friendly private enterprise. What could possibly go wrong, I'm sure banks (Deutsche bank) and insurers (Allianz) always have out best interest at heart and would never seek to abuse our private information friend. Now sit back and consume some non mandatory Cadbury confectionery and Delicious Coca-Cola Amtil beverages whilst watching your favourite dramas on your LG television.
In reality I cant see this working. They're trying to replace individual registrations with one giant registration. In theory it sounds great, but in reality it'll just be one more password you need to remember and another giant security nightmare.
Kebabs are pretty tasty. Lots of people like Kebabs. You would also if you tasted one, but its hard to taste food when your head is up your ass.
You can whine all you want about SJWs or political correctness, but there is nothing sensible about fascism. There is nothing sensible about ISIS either. Not all muslims are extremists and not all extremists are muslim. Those are very simple truths that you choose to refute.
One extremist begets another. And so on. At least the French are more aware of this than Americans.
Egalité, fraternité, liberté. Vive la France!
This,
The answer to extremism is not more extremism. That's like saying the answer to a fire is coal and petrol.
The vulnerability here are voters without a clue about reality. That one cannot easily be fixed, but throwing the staff and financiers of such companies in jail would be a start.
Does that include companies like The Guardian too? They're one of the biggest culprits when it comes to trying to influence clueless voters with their version of reality. Hell, these demagogues are still peddling the "Pepe is racist hate speech" nonsense, on their frontpage no less.
The only thing you've revealed here is that you've never even picked up a copy of the guardian.
The Daily Mail and their ilk are the biggest culprits in trying to influence clueless voters. This does not excuse the Guardian but what you wrote is completely wrong. The Guardian is trying to influence clued voters, why (and this is how we can tell you've never read the Guardian) is because the Guardian is written much more eloquently. There is a minimum education level required to understand the language used, your clueless readers end up going back to the Daily Mail or Sun to read celebrity trash and extreme right wing propaganda sandwiched between Page 3 girls. The Sun and DM target the most basest desires (which is why they're little more than soft porn these days) with the most basic language.
It's clear you're a Murdoch fanboy (Fox News/Daily Mail) as you don't even know that "front page" is two words.
Now if it were up to me, I wouldn't get rid of the DM or the Guardian. I'd simply enforce the same editorial standards as the BBC across the entire industry... And I'd tighten them up too. Get caught publishing a falsehood, a retraction must be issued on the front page. Get caught doing it deliberately, the retraction must run for 5 days.
Some vague allusions to Jewish parents does not prove that Front National are not Neo-Nazis.
If you bothered to look at FN's policies, you'll see that they are fascists with a racist agenda. OK, so they've swapped from Jews to Muslims, that does not make racism (or xenophobia) acceptable.
Apple is the most valuable private company in the world. You're delusional.
-jcr
And that makes them magically protected from screwing up or falling behind... How?
At one point, IBM was the worlds most valuable company. Hell, we even said things like "You'll never be fired for buying IBM" and "What does IBM stand for, 'Immense Buckets of Money'". Ahh the 90's, good times. The warning goes without saying: Pride goeth before a fall.
I think we've already passed peak Apple and they're going to start to descend into being just another device. Apple have managed to evade this being noticeable by expanding into other markets like China and India, but now they've got nowhere left to expand into and their decline in popularity is going to be noticeable. Apples problem here is that their competitors are just as good, if not better than they are. Sure Apple will be around for a while but their power is waning, just like IBM in the 2000's.
True, however it is C&C that popularised the genre.
I like Dune 2, it was the first of what we'd call a modern RTS, but it's not as good as C&C. Dune 2 is more the Release Candidate of RTS, C&C was the SP1 with most of the bugs ironed out. I think the biggest contributing factor in Dune 2's success was the Dune backstory where most gamer's of the time were also avid Sci-Fi fans and readers. If it weren't for this, I suspect C&C may never had been made.
Even back in 1995, compared to C&C, Dune 2 was inferior. Not bad mind you, but it's like comparing Supreme Commander to Total Annihilation. You'll still go back and play TA because it's a good game in its own right, but it's flaws compared to SupCom are glaring.
You didn't miss much with Halo. It was a decent, but pretty generic shooter. It was the first game to do away with medpacks and instead use the wait-for-your-health-to-restore-by-staying-out-of-combat mechanic. Nowadays gamers usually pan it. It also had vehicles which was still pretty new at the time.
Plenty of FPS's had vehicles before Halo, Tribes (1998) had them. Operation Flashpoint (2001) was had many and it was released in the same year as Battlefield 1942.
Halo was the progenitor to Modern Snorefare and other cover based shooters with no need for health or ammo management. Whilst it wasn't the first FPS to be designed for consoles (auto-aim and other player aids) it started the FPS consolidation trend. In FPS terms Halo was just another average shooter released in an age of many good shooters and would have been remembered as such if not for being on the Xbox.
Its singular distinction was having a somewhat decent story, however simplified and cliched as it was. Nowhere as good as something like Deus Ex or System Shock, but it could keep the players attention.
Your post is out of place, it belongs on the GP's post. He's the one posting bullshit.
Contrary to what the Daily Mail says, no-one goes to prison for actual self defence here in the UK. Plenty go to court because the court decides if it was an actual case of self-defence. Self defence in the UK is an all or nothing thing. You either walk, or you get nicked. Almost all cases walk unless there was foul play involved, if that is so, it's not self defence. To convince a court of self defence, all you need to do is demonstrate you felt that your persons or property were in danger. This includes acts where you struck first. Further more, you only have to demonstrate this to the judges satisfaction, not beyond reasonable doubt.
However, in the US, more people are shot by their own guns or by attackers than manage to successfully defend their own home with violence because the criminals are as well armed as the defenders... and they get the jump on you.
I like living in the UK with our cowardly, unarmed crooks. I like knowing that the worst thing he'll be armed with is a kitchen knife and if I were to hit him with the golf bat I have, I wont have a problem with the courts because what is the criminal going to say "I came at him with a knife and he hit me"?
It's not unreasonable to have a better booking system for rides. It's not unreasonable to use mapping software to determine the approximate cost of a fare. It may possibly even be reasonable to allow the use of private vehicles for passenger livery part-time, which means that part-time drivers would have to buy-in to whatever dispatch service they wish to work for. It even may be reasonable to allow customers to rate drivers and drivers to rate customers to essentially determine risk/worth/surcharge.
The thing is, the booking by app thing, has been a thing for many years now and many third party apps are happy to work with many providers. The UK app "Minicabit" allows you to call a minicab (private hire vehicle) and select from a list of providers, they also allow you to rate your experience. A minicab is a pre-agreed fare, not metered in the UK. This part is happening and was happening before Uber ever reared it's ugly head.
Uber is essentially legal here in England as it falls under the same regulations a minicabs which are pretty minimal to begin with. Ubers problem is that no-one, not even Uber is making money.
Because anything that's illegal is automatically immoral?
Vice versa, a lot of things that are immoral are not illegal.
Uber has committed both illegal and immoral acts wantonly in such quantities that any distinction is academic at this point in time. They need to be put down.
No, a RADAR detector listens for transmissions that exist.
In theory, yes.
However as RADAR and LIDAR began to use tighter beams, RADAR detectors had to start using active signals to detect them. If you're using a passive detector for LIDAR, the camera has already got you before your brain registers the beep from the detector (assuming the detector works of course).
Personally I have no issue with RADAR detectors, they aren't illegal in Western Australia because they don't work. Everyone I knew who had one still got speeding tickets from multi-novas (mobile speed cameras) even though their detector was allegedly working. All I ask is that they are certified under the same system as any other transmitting device.
Don't know if this is true, but it's a damn good story:
At a NATO military conference, the French admiral was complaining, "Why do we have to speak English at all of these events?"
The Dutch admiral replied, "Because the British, Canadians, and Americans made sure we don't have to speak German."
Plenty of jokes like this. My favourite:
Someone muttered some German over the ATC channel over Frankfurt airport. ATC responded with "Speak English please".
The airliner asked "I am a German pilot in a German aircraft flying over a German airport. Why cant I speak German?".
The next response was in a perfect English accent "because we won the bloody war".
Slashdot Mirror
I remember downloading web pages for display for later on my Windows CE Palm-sized PC Cassiopeia e-105 in 1999.
Everything old is new again.
However, unlike WinCE, it will actually work.
Google aren't claiming to have invented anything here, rather just introducing a feature that is new (to modern phone browsers). I can see this as being handy for people who commute, not just because there is little to no reception on the Tube (and spotty at best reception on the train to London) but because once you're in Bank, the towers are so overloaded and modern web pages so bloated that being able to load it from memory is much faster.
Iphone users, you can expect Apple to announce they "invented" something similar in 18-36 months.
Something doesn't seem right here. I live in Summit County, CO for 7 years and no one who lives in Summit County is actually from Summit County, or really even Colorado. Furthermore, even fewer are even year round residents. There's almost no one over the 65 there, the vast majority of the population are younger to early middle age ski bums. The same goes for Eagle County and to some degree Pitkin. Something about the ski bum population is skewing those results. (On a side note, a former Air Force general, Don Kutyna, who ran the US Space Command for a bit skied nearly every day and he was 70+ at the time. Over at Copper Mountain we had Frank Walters who was 80+ and skied hundreds of days a year.)
OTOH, you've got communities where being under 40 makes you extremely young. The village where I work is surrounded by retirement homes as well as retirees in private residents. Its like god waiting room there. I swear I lower the average age of the village by 23.4 year when I drive into town.
Dare I say it, chances are the old people moved to a warmer climate or where services for the elderly are more readily available. Maybe they moved to be closer to their families. Sounds like you live in a tourist town. You rarely find old people in tourist centres, particularly ones focused around active sports. Sorry, not sorry if this blows a hole in your rant about "ski bums".
It's a reasonable bet that the people with lower life expectancy are probably not voting progressive. They have less money, worse jobs and lower life expectancy. They don't see progressive solutions as being in their service. At best progressives will lecture them about how their jobs aren't coming back, they should learn to code, go to university, and move to the rich enclaves on the coasts. Not that conservatives are any better, but conservatives figure out that it's better to pretend to listen, rather than to lecture those with less money, worse jobs and lower life expectancy on how they are all privileged transphobic racists and deserve their lot because of it.
What absolute bollocks.
You sound like a pompus old imperialist who hasn't realised the world left them behind over a century ago. "Hurmph, the poor are not smart enough to understand anything outside their lives of poverty and neglect. Its a good thing we lords are here to rule over them". I'm surprised that you didn't go onto say that they don't need education, health care and basic rights.
Here in the civilised world, yes, the coal miners did learn other skills. Hell, the plumber I spoke to the other day is quite well clued in on the world. This is the kind of thing that happens when education is available to all.
In the UK, poor people are more likely to vote progressive than rich people because rich people benefit more under conservatives and the poor benefit more under progressives. People who vote for regressive parties tend to be wilfully ignorant. This does not correlate to income one bit. You can be rich, well educated and still a complete ignorant arse. Many UKIP voters are well to do, in fact the party is set up to benefit a few rich, whilst the rest of us would have our future sold down the drain by the likes of UKIP.
Really? A hopeless life? Being forced into a miserable reservation? Stripped of human dignity?
They are not "forced" to live on the reservation. They are US citizens and can live anywhere in the country.
That is a relatively new. Historically they were forced to live on reservations, even the the constitution said they didn't have to, a lot of local laws and local attitudes kept them bottled up. As such they've been separated from American society and culture, it should be little surprise that they've only adopted the worst parts. There will be living native Americans old enough to remember those times.
Besides, you've effectively argued against what the GGP was saying, he's claiming the problems the native Americans are having are genetic... Which is utter bollocks, as you've eluded to, the issues are cultural and American society and government played a key part in creating that culture.
Now the problem of Alcoholism and poor diet is not something restricted to race. Alcoholism and diabetes happens in White, Black, Asian and Hispanic communities as well. The common factor not race, but socio-economic conditions. Alcohol abuse tends to be more prevalent in poorer neighbourhoods. I've seen it all the way from Colombia to the Phillipines to Russia... and Russia is as white as you can get. Even in the US, you'll spot that poor white neighbourhoods have the same alcohol issues as other colours. Same for crime, poor nutrition and other issues.
Well you watched Obama "fix" it and nothing changed for these poor people.
I'd say all we proved is that government is incapable of fixing anything.
I halfway agree in that I think the ACA did not do enough. Roughly 20 million people gained medical coverage of some kind. Given that a significant part of this study revealed healthcare as a contributing factor, I wouldn't be suprised if tens of thousands of lives were saved. The real problem is we need a single payer system like the rest of the developed world, where we would pay about half as much to insure everyone while getting superior medical outcomes. Even trump agrees.
This. The problem the ACA had wasn't Obama, the ACA ended up being almost nothing like what Obama wanted or proposed in the first place. The problem with the ACA is that the Republicans that controlled the house could not allow it to succeed. So it was sabotaged at every opportunity.
Adding to my own post. I'm all in favor of community standards and even community laws that ban behaviours. Even libertarians should be in favor of not interferring with communities that want to regulate themselves. It's a free country. But banning something in someone elses community because you don't like it is something to fear.
This particular judge is overstepping their bounds, I expect Facebook to appeal and win if the decision isn't reversed sooner. This is less of an oppressive government and more of what the Americans would call an "activist judge".
What, or who, defines "hate" speech? I found the above two posts to be funny... but if some hyper-"sensitive" person complained about similar postings (on facebook), would it then be considered hateful? If I posted "Jesus loves you" and 10,000 people reported it as being hateful, would it be removed? Is there an internet vote on each potential post before removal?
Like you, I found the above posts funny.
"Hate" speech is a actually well defined, its centred around the concept of intent. With the above post, the intent was humour. Hate speech requires a clear malicious intent.
Hate speech is not actually a crime, it's a catch all word used to dumb down a very complex legal issue for people who have trouble breathing with their mouths closed. Certainly in the UK you'll never be charged with "hate" crimes, if you are charged the exact nature of the bigotry will be in the accusation (I.E. racism, xenophobia) and it will almost never be for a single comment. In order to be bad enough to be bought before the court, it must be a concerted effort. Usually when we define a "hate" crime in the legal sense, we're talking about a protected attribute like race, religion and gender.
Making a single racist or anti-Semitic comment wont get you dragged up in front of a judge. Repeatedly threatening someone because they're black/Jewish/gay/has ginger hair will.
Now whether FB would remove a post because "hyper-sensitive" people complained. Well that is commonplace, but its nothing to do with the government of any country, rather Facebooks policies and I suspect they have automated it so that if a post gets X reports, it's gone regardless of if it were offensive or not.
Right lads, we can compromise our world wide business or we can pull out of Austria. Hmmmmmm decisions.
A pretty stupid move.
The Austrian court has overstepped their bounds here, but ignoring the ruling just means they'll legally be able to take actions against Facebook in other countries (at the very least, EU wide). I expect Facebook to appeal this decision and to demonstrate the the Austrian court's authority does not extend past Austrian borders.
I'm certain this will be defeated in an appeal (not that you'll hear about it mind you).
Well, unless you like looking like an idiot later on if you're parroting something incorrect...
Whilst this statement is completely true, it's also utterly irrelevant.
We now live in a society that celebrates ignorance and stupidity. Its no longer an insult to be an idiot and become popular to be ignorant. Blindly re-posting an obvious lie is 100% acceptable as along as the lie is popular. Opposing it with fact gets you labelled as "fake" and any number of other disparaging remarks made about your character.
It's become popular to "fat-shame". I have to ask why it's unpopular to "stupid-shame".
I think you messed up the punchline.
Nope, the British don't say "you lost the war", that is poor form and denotes a lack of self respect. What you wrote is yet another American butchering of the Queens English.
There are places in the US where you would make less money working than you would on welfare. And since basically any kind of income can disqualify you from welfare, not only is work discouraged buyt working your way up is discouraged as well. Basically, since welfare isn’t on any kind of sliding scale, it actively discourages working.
You're thinking of UBI as if it were the US's horribly broken welfare programmes. Its designed as a replacement, not an accompaniment for existing programmes.
The idea behind UBI is that everyone gets it. It doesn't matter who you are, everyone receives the same amount as a UBI, it doesn't matter if you're a pauper or a billionaire, everyone gets UBI. That's what the "Universal" part means.
If you want a lifestyle that is beyond what UBI provides, then you have the option to work for additional money, with UBI it becomes impossible for a job to pay less than UBI. The incentive to work is the fact that UBI is not meant to provide a life of luxury, this is what the "Basic" part means.
I'll let you figure out what the "Income" part is on your own.
To be frank, I don't see developed nations remaining developed nations without UBI in the face of increasing automation. If we don't adopt it, we'll end up with a large underclass subsistence farming and having most of the luxuries we take for granted far out of reach... like a developing nation.
Because you don't care to pay on your own — you wish to force others to do it...
You're projecting here.
I want everyone to pay their fair share. Myself included. I pay my taxes because taxes buy civilisation.
Taxes pay for roads. Taxes pay for fire, police and other emergency services. Taxes pay for health care (UK resident here, the NHS costs half as much as American health care) and yes, it also pays for welfare.
I dont mind that my taxes pay for welfare, even though I'm not eligible to claim any for another 4 years. Welfare at the very least keeps the unemployable out of petty crime. So they're siting at home eating ALDI pies and watching daytime television instead of breaking into my home and stealing my television. Welfare bludgers are a very small number of people, but if a quarter of them went out stealing for money, it would increase petty crime significantly. Not because they're so numerous, but because here in the UK it's pretty safe in most places. If I accidentally leave my car unlocked at the local Tesco (as I have done once or twice before) then I'm confident I will come back and still have my laptop in the boot.
I know you're thinking "well durn it, why dontcha just lock up alla da durn theifs". Well there is a simple economic argument for that. It costs £65,000 per prisoner per year. Minimum wage is less than £15,000 per year, welfare is less than that. If we paid them a minimum wage just to keep them out of prison, we're saving money as well as not introducing them to the kind of people we need to keep out of society.
I suppose, it depends on how the question is phrased:
Would you like to be given money even if you do not work? Hell yah! Would you like to pay higher taxes so that some of it will be given to others even if they do not work? Hell no!Once again, you've only demonstrated that you don't understand what UBI is.
Universal Basic Income is granted to every citizen of working age regardless of whether they're working or not. Salaries earned are on top of UBI. You're thinking of UBI in terms of American social security programmes, you need to break that kind of thinking. UBI is meant to replace almost all assistance programs, Also, as you're going to receive UBI if you work, you wont really be paying more tax as you receive the UBI portion tax free.
As we automate more and more jobs, I cant see the developed world staying developed without something pretty much exactly like UBI. The alternative is to keep a large, unemployable population in poverty. At that point, subsistence farms will revert us into developing nations.Of course this kind of rich lording it over the poor is a RWNJ's wet dream.
Germany has never had any problems with overbearing governance, so stop the fear mongering and show me your papers, please.
But this isn't being proposed by teh Ebil Gubbermint, it's being proposed by nice, safe and friendly private enterprise. What could possibly go wrong, I'm sure banks (Deutsche bank) and insurers (Allianz) always have out best interest at heart and would never seek to abuse our private information friend. Now sit back and consume some non mandatory Cadbury confectionery and Delicious Coca-Cola Amtil beverages whilst watching your favourite dramas on your LG television.
In reality I cant see this working. They're trying to replace individual registrations with one giant registration. In theory it sounds great, but in reality it'll just be one more password you need to remember and another giant security nightmare.
Kebabs are pretty tasty. Lots of people like Kebabs. You would also if you tasted one, but its hard to taste food when your head is up your ass.
You can whine all you want about SJWs or political correctness, but there is nothing sensible about fascism. There is nothing sensible about ISIS either. Not all muslims are extremists and not all extremists are muslim. Those are very simple truths that you choose to refute.
One extremist begets another. And so on. At least the French are more aware of this than Americans.
Egalité, fraternité, liberté. Vive la France!
This,
The answer to extremism is not more extremism. That's like saying the answer to a fire is coal and petrol.
The vulnerability here are voters without a clue about reality. That one cannot easily be fixed, but throwing the staff and financiers of such companies in jail would be a start.
Does that include companies like The Guardian too? They're one of the biggest culprits when it comes to trying to influence clueless voters with their version of reality. Hell, these demagogues are still peddling the "Pepe is racist hate speech" nonsense, on their frontpage no less.
The only thing you've revealed here is that you've never even picked up a copy of the guardian.
The Daily Mail and their ilk are the biggest culprits in trying to influence clueless voters. This does not excuse the Guardian but what you wrote is completely wrong. The Guardian is trying to influence clued voters, why (and this is how we can tell you've never read the Guardian) is because the Guardian is written much more eloquently. There is a minimum education level required to understand the language used, your clueless readers end up going back to the Daily Mail or Sun to read celebrity trash and extreme right wing propaganda sandwiched between Page 3 girls. The Sun and DM target the most basest desires (which is why they're little more than soft porn these days) with the most basic language.
It's clear you're a Murdoch fanboy (Fox News/Daily Mail) as you don't even know that "front page" is two words.
Now if it were up to me, I wouldn't get rid of the DM or the Guardian. I'd simply enforce the same editorial standards as the BBC across the entire industry... And I'd tighten them up too. Get caught publishing a falsehood, a retraction must be issued on the front page. Get caught doing it deliberately, the retraction must run for 5 days.
"The National Front are a pack of anti-Semitic Neo-Nazis"
It will be difficult to convince Louis Aliot (Jewish grandfather https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/...) and David Rachline (Jewish Ukrainian grandparents https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/...), both top-level leaders of the Front National.
Some vague allusions to Jewish parents does not prove that Front National are not Neo-Nazis.
If you bothered to look at FN's policies, you'll see that they are fascists with a racist agenda. OK, so they've swapped from Jews to Muslims, that does not make racism (or xenophobia) acceptable.
Apple is falling behind
Apple is the most valuable private company in the world. You're delusional.
-jcr
And that makes them magically protected from screwing up or falling behind... How?
At one point, IBM was the worlds most valuable company. Hell, we even said things like "You'll never be fired for buying IBM" and "What does IBM stand for, 'Immense Buckets of Money'". Ahh the 90's, good times. The warning goes without saying: Pride goeth before a fall.
I think we've already passed peak Apple and they're going to start to descend into being just another device. Apple have managed to evade this being noticeable by expanding into other markets like China and India, but now they've got nowhere left to expand into and their decline in popularity is going to be noticeable. Apples problem here is that their competitors are just as good, if not better than they are. Sure Apple will be around for a while but their power is waning, just like IBM in the 2000's.
Dune 2 Reception
True, however it is C&C that popularised the genre.
I like Dune 2, it was the first of what we'd call a modern RTS, but it's not as good as C&C. Dune 2 is more the Release Candidate of RTS, C&C was the SP1 with most of the bugs ironed out. I think the biggest contributing factor in Dune 2's success was the Dune backstory where most gamer's of the time were also avid Sci-Fi fans and readers. If it weren't for this, I suspect C&C may never had been made.
Even back in 1995, compared to C&C, Dune 2 was inferior. Not bad mind you, but it's like comparing Supreme Commander to Total Annihilation. You'll still go back and play TA because it's a good game in its own right, but it's flaws compared to SupCom are glaring.
You didn't miss much with Halo. It was a decent, but pretty generic shooter. It was the first game to do away with medpacks and instead use the wait-for-your-health-to-restore-by-staying-out-of-combat mechanic. Nowadays gamers usually pan it. It also had vehicles which was still pretty new at the time.
Plenty of FPS's had vehicles before Halo, Tribes (1998) had them. Operation Flashpoint (2001) was had many and it was released in the same year as Battlefield 1942. Halo was the progenitor to Modern Snorefare and other cover based shooters with no need for health or ammo management. Whilst it wasn't the first FPS to be designed for consoles (auto-aim and other player aids) it started the FPS consolidation trend. In FPS terms Halo was just another average shooter released in an age of many good shooters and would have been remembered as such if not for being on the Xbox.
Its singular distinction was having a somewhat decent story, however simplified and cliched as it was. Nowhere as good as something like Deus Ex or System Shock, but it could keep the players attention.
So much bullshit. Sooo much bullshit.
Your post is out of place, it belongs on the GP's post. He's the one posting bullshit.
Contrary to what the Daily Mail says, no-one goes to prison for actual self defence here in the UK. Plenty go to court because the court decides if it was an actual case of self-defence. Self defence in the UK is an all or nothing thing. You either walk, or you get nicked. Almost all cases walk unless there was foul play involved, if that is so, it's not self defence. To convince a court of self defence, all you need to do is demonstrate you felt that your persons or property were in danger. This includes acts where you struck first. Further more, you only have to demonstrate this to the judges satisfaction, not beyond reasonable doubt.
However, in the US, more people are shot by their own guns or by attackers than manage to successfully defend their own home with violence because the criminals are as well armed as the defenders... and they get the jump on you.
I like living in the UK with our cowardly, unarmed crooks. I like knowing that the worst thing he'll be armed with is a kitchen knife and if I were to hit him with the golf bat I have, I wont have a problem with the courts because what is the criminal going to say "I came at him with a knife and he hit me"?
It's not unreasonable to have a better booking system for rides. It's not unreasonable to use mapping software to determine the approximate cost of a fare. It may possibly even be reasonable to allow the use of private vehicles for passenger livery part-time, which means that part-time drivers would have to buy-in to whatever dispatch service they wish to work for. It even may be reasonable to allow customers to rate drivers and drivers to rate customers to essentially determine risk/worth/surcharge.
The thing is, the booking by app thing, has been a thing for many years now and many third party apps are happy to work with many providers. The UK app "Minicabit" allows you to call a minicab (private hire vehicle) and select from a list of providers, they also allow you to rate your experience. A minicab is a pre-agreed fare, not metered in the UK. This part is happening and was happening before Uber ever reared it's ugly head.
Uber is essentially legal here in England as it falls under the same regulations a minicabs which are pretty minimal to begin with. Ubers problem is that no-one, not even Uber is making money.
Because anything that's illegal is automatically immoral?
Vice versa, a lot of things that are immoral are not illegal.
Uber has committed both illegal and immoral acts wantonly in such quantities that any distinction is academic at this point in time. They need to be put down.
No, a RADAR detector listens for transmissions that exist.
In theory, yes.
However as RADAR and LIDAR began to use tighter beams, RADAR detectors had to start using active signals to detect them. If you're using a passive detector for LIDAR, the camera has already got you before your brain registers the beep from the detector (assuming the detector works of course).
Personally I have no issue with RADAR detectors, they aren't illegal in Western Australia because they don't work. Everyone I knew who had one still got speeding tickets from multi-novas (mobile speed cameras) even though their detector was allegedly working. All I ask is that they are certified under the same system as any other transmitting device.
Don't know if this is true, but it's a damn good story:
At a NATO military conference, the French admiral was complaining, "Why do we have to speak English at all of these events?"
The Dutch admiral replied, "Because the British, Canadians, and Americans made sure we don't have to speak German."
Plenty of jokes like this. My favourite:
Someone muttered some German over the ATC channel over Frankfurt airport. ATC responded with "Speak English please".
The airliner asked "I am a German pilot in a German aircraft flying over a German airport. Why cant I speak German?".
The next response was in a perfect English accent "because we won the bloody war".