Actually I think her first response should have been to knock out his teeth.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is sexism in action. No one - certainly not this poster - would suggest that a man should knock out a woman's teeth for propositioning him, no matter how inappropriate it might be. But violence against a man for the same cause is apparently perfectly acceptable.
Nope, this just demonstrates you dont know what sexism is.
Sexism is not a difference between the sexes, as you have pointed out... rather it is discrimination based on a particular attribute. The GP did not advocate hitting him because he was male, he advocated hitting him because he was being an arsehole. If anything it was arseholist.
The thing is, it's only really western society that has the hang up agianst hitting women. Lots of countries, in particular developing catholic countries consider it perfectly acceptable for men to hit women. Take the Philippines for example, spousal abuse is perfectly legal there (and divorces are banned because Old Book says so). Yes it did offend my sensibilities when I saw it happen whilst I lived there, in fact it made me feel angrier than I've ever felt however I didn't do anything about it because I'm not an idiot and know how to control myself, even under extreme pressure.
Did you ever think why western societies like Europe and America have these compunctions against hitting women, it mostly comes down to the fact men have a physical advantage against women. We decided long ago that this was unfair and ingrained it in our social conscious that this advantage should not be exercised. So if anything, refusing to hit women is anti-sexist.
Of course this being a modern society, if you have to defend yourself against a woman then yes, defend... But then again if she's tough enough to throw punches, the average slashdotter wont be capable of fighting back. Myself, I'd consider it an absolute last resort, I cant even hit women who have had more self defence training than me in training.
1. Apparently the boss did not make sex a condition of continued employment.
He's her boss. That's ALWAYS implied or always the risk.
Really? Then why was it OK when Bill Clinton had sex with an intern?
If you don't already know the answer to that... you should stay away from women.
Because it was consensual.
Being a boss does not automatically prevent you from propositioning a lower ranked employee. In fact I've seen a few relationships like this where both parties were happy. What would be wrong is the boss using their position to coerce an employee into a relationship or sexual act against their will... or conversely a subordinate using it to gain favour. Although both sides can abuse it, it is considered worse when a boss uses an employee because of the position of power they hold over them.
Maybe you don't see it since you are not the target of it.
This.
In my experience, sexism is rife amongst environments where one sex is dominant. Same with race, religion and any other popular form of discrimination. Any mono-cultural environment breeds contempt of outsiders like a virus, or maybe that should be inbreeds. This is less of a problem in countries where minorities are permitted to participate in society (and as a result, integrate) but I've seen as serious resurgence of racism and xenophobia in all western countries of late, which is a shame as we had practically eliminated it in the 90's and 00's, at least in Australia.
I think a lot of people like to ignore these behaviours because it doesn't involve them and it's more trouble to fight than to ignore them in the workplace.
Every single one of the problems you cite about drugs is due to their prohibition, or at the very least exacerbated by it.
Exactly the same things happened during alcohol prohibition, but for some reason you people are too stupid to see the correlation and instead continue to think that doing more and harder of the same will get you different results.
Not quite. The medical problems are still based in chemistry. physically destructive drugs like Heroin and Krokodil are still going to destroy bodies even when decriminalised.
I largely agree with your point, but you only harm your own argument by ignoring the glaring fault I pointed out above.
You're probably thinking largely of Marijuana and LSD (the least destructive of the illicit drugs) possibly up to MDMA, cocaine and amphetamines. Here I think your point remains valid. However it gets into a grey area when talking about things like Crystal Meth. I could agree with decriminalising the former drugs I mentioned, but ignoring things like Meth, Heroin and other drugs that are actually destructive is foolhardy.
The problem in the US is with who the rules are enforced against. For a long time the user has been punished whilst the producers and distributors are largely ignored. That is patently stupid. In Australia and the UK, possessing a small amount of marijuana or LSD is a misdemeanour, you'll get a fine but nothing on your record. In order to get a serious penalty, you need to be selling or supplying.
Why the flying hell do cars not have a Rental setting that wipes all data with the press of a single button?!
Actually, many of these infotainment systems do have a factory reset function. You might have to tunnel into the settings to find it, but it is often there.
A couple of issues here. The GP asked specifically about hire cars. Hire cars are not going to include any special features specific to the the hire car industries because there's no profit in it. Rental companies wont pay extra, in fact they buy the cheapest spec possible for fleet rates.
The other reason is that manufacturers dont want a single button reset because inevitably some ditsy steering wheel attendant will press it and wipe all of their settings... and then sue the dealer/manufacturer for emotional distress or something.
That being said, I think this is going to become an industry for mechanics (and a small gold mine for dealers) as most people are not savvy enough to reset an infotainment system enough that old app connections will no longer work, so they'll need to pay someone to do it for them. It'll become another thing that you need to check has been done before buying a used car like HPI checks.
What makes me feel like this is just some bullshit marketng post is, how do you sell 0.4 of a phone, or 0.9 of a phone... All of those "units sold" should be whole numbers.
Erm... they're talking in percentages. When you're talking in the terms of 446 million units, a tenth of a percent is 460,000 units... Which is still significant.
They aren't selling 0.3 of a phone, they are taking 0.3% of the market which means they're selling 1.3 million phones.
What this report emphasises (without trying to say it) is that the windows phone market has been in decline for years. In 2015 I believe they had 2% and at their peak, 4%. What the report also doesn't say (because when they haven't got their tongue up Microsoft's arse, Gartner are vigorously trying to shove it up Apple's arse) is that the smartphone market is really the Android market.
Did someone think to sue State of London for all those cameras around?
Is the City of London operating "all those cameras" in contravention of the Act?
A better question is, are the governments of London operating all of those cameras? How many are private?
The oft-quoted number of eleventy bajillion cameras in London almost always include private CCTV cameras (which are in almost every country these days). Only a fraction of them are government owned.
Also, the City of London is a 3 KM square stretch of central London. There are 32 other administrative regions (boroughs) in London, each will run their own sets of CCTV which will make a smaller fraction of the total CCTV cameras in each borough. There isn't some central authority running all CCTV cameras (I imagine most Americans picture a thin Briton wearing a navy blue suit and matching bowler hat watching a bank of monitors without any facial expressions,,, not the case). The majority of cameras are privately owned.
Private or public, everyone has to follow the same rules. We enshrine privacy in our own homes, back when I lived in OZ I put up a CCTV camera on my own property because our cars were constantly being broken into (not that the lazy sods from WAPOL would do anything) but I had to ensure they didn't point directly into anyone else's house. I recorded the footpath and road, but kept it clear of my neighbours yards. In sane countries like the UK and Australia we like to apply the same rules to public and private organisations as much as possible.
With Apple's track record of implementing Android features, they'll do it completely wrong.
I've never encountered an Android phone "doing it wrong", this goes from the first HTC Dream to my latest Nexus 5X. If you're accidentally pressing the soft buttons, you're doing something horribly wrong as they need to be pressed properly to work and have no function if held down too long. In fact, I'd prefer the soft buttons to be more sensitive on my 5X.
... in that I never heard of it before and don't give a shit now that I have.
OK, Youtube "star" who got a lot of view doing video game reviews/walkthroughts decided to produce a very off colour joke for shits and giggles, who then got fired for it.
Its not really a big deal. I'm pretty sure if you or I turned up to work wearing a sign that said "death to jews" we'd get the sack too.
You realize that a vast majority of the people aligned with the politics you are defending would hang you out to dry for defending guns.
I'm not "defending guns". I'm giving my personal history. I'm a gun owner for nearly 40 years and I still believe in strict background checks for owning guns, and in the right of local communities to make their own gun laws. Most of the gun owners I know feel the same.
And the vast majority with the politics your defending would feel the same.
The problem you detractors have is that they need to turn it into an all or nothing us-v-them debate without realising that many of the people they're talking about don't want bans, just sensible restrictions. I'm an Australian and a former gun owner, no horror story there, but moving made it easier to sell them rather than keep them. If I feel the need to squeeze off a few rounds, there are plenty of places I can do that, so I have no desire to see guns banned.
The problem is, this kind of thinking is the kind of thing the OP hates because it depolarises the issue. I'm a centrist (which makes me a leftie in the eyes of the extreme right), so for me (and possibly you) to support gun ownership is something that needs to be stamped out in order for me to fit into their world view.
You know who doesn't get the irony of fighting fascism with fascism?
The leftists.
You know who doesn't understand what Irony is... You.
Or leftism and/or fascism.
By definition, a fascist cant be a leftist as Fascism is an extreme right political philosophy, The left equivalent of Fascism is called Communism and ironically enough... they are the traditional enemies of fascism. It wasn't the west Hitler wanted to conquer, it was Russia where he sought his Lebensraum.
Also, those who defeated the Nazi's like Churchill and Eisenhower were actually very left of where today's politicians are. They would be left of Obama and Blair, definitely left of Cameron, May, Turnbull and Bush... and extremely left of Trump.
The irony is, you've gone so far towards the extreme authoritarian right, you don't even know what the left is anymore.
I don't think it really matters, it costs almost nothing to defend these cases for Uber. They're just trying to defer spinning up a big HR division between now and in five years when Uber replaces most of their human drivers with driverless cars.
Awaken from your dreamy state.
Uber is just trying to undercut existing competition by ignoring the rules other players are forced to abide by... And complaining bitterly when said rules are applied to them.
Even though they're getting away with this for the most part, they're still losing money hand over fist. Uber will go out of business within a few years. Seceding from the Brazilian market will be the beginning of the end (Easy Taxi is the go-to app for taxi hailing in South America).
a tech company has to defend or justify spending money on R&D...for tech.
I've spotted your problem.
It certainly is news when a marketing company spends money on R&D. Especailly when spending increases.
What Apple have said here is that their marketing is no longer enough to win customers, they actually need to compete with other technology products. I predicted this 2 years ago as China was the last significant market left to move into, once that was done their userbase would start dropping because people are already falling off the Apple bandwagon in western countries.
Apple is all but admitting that their competitors products are as good as, if not better than their own with this move.
Not joking. I live in London, we've tried a couple of experiments by just stopping, as one does, and morons on mobiles (may I suggest the hashtag #moronsonmobiles) just bump into you. A few apologise, most do not. So, let's get rid of the lot. Nothing that you need to do on your phone is that important, even looking at pictures of cats.
I tend to use the acronym MOP (morons On Phones) for drivers too busy with their head buried in their phones on the road.
MOP's in cars is much less of a problem in England than they were in Australia. Perth police did a weekend sting on phones whilst driving and issued 700 files in 48 hours... and it's not like they didn't advertise the fact this sting was happening for at least a week beforehand.
However back to London, there was a report on ITV a few months back about a spate of "brazen" (ITVs word, not mine) phone thefts in London. I took one look at the CCTV footage they broadcast and immediately said "You're an idiot for walking down a busy street with your head buried in your phone". Theives were snatching phones out of hands with remarkable ease because people had no idea what was going on around them, no situational awareness what so ever.
Being a non-native to the UK, I'm often using my phone for waking directions in an unfamiliar place. However I dont walk around with my head buried in it because that would just be stupid. Basic rules of politeness and self preservation say that I should move to a wall, out of the way of others before looking at maps, messages or cat videos.
This will just lead to browsers muting sound by default
Most employers are blocking Facebook.
This is more a problem with phones which are always switched to full volume. I turned off autoplay ages ago. I just need to figure out how to completely get rid of the Instashit ads.
I thought Apple was a pretty capable company, but they can't design a phone that isn't a hazard to repair?
Why are you assuming this isn't by design.
Apple could make an easy to repair phone like other companies, but where's the profit in that? How will they sell the next version if old phones keep working for years on end and there aren't any significant improvements.
Apple deliberately makes them hard to repair to generate repeat sales. That's why they're fighting against your right to repair.
You do know that this technology has been around for a few good years now and most people not only know what you said, but many actually have these things at home right?
This isn't some pie in the sky physics lab experiment that Apple are courageously innovating first to market....
Actually last to market may be a more correct way of putting it.
And on that wireless charging been a resounding failure to launch.
Apple as usual is late to the party with drinks no-one likes. They're the kind of person who brings tofu burgers to a BBQ.
PC appropriateness is relative. For example, if I called a Trump-voting evangelical a "sky-man-fairy-tale-worshiping nutcase" they will have a fit. That's my non-PC way of describing their religion.
No, that'd just be you being an asshole.
Nope, you're just demonstrating that the Anti-PC crowd are a bunch of whiny hypocrites.
It seems you want the capability to complain about things you don't like whilst everyone else has to silently accept what you support... Which is ironically what the Anti-PC crowd complains about. The GP insulted your precious Trump whilst the GGP held up Trumps insults to others as a prime example of being Anti-PC.
Also he was being very polite, my Scottish relatives describe Trump as a "Cheeto-faced buttplug".
Calling someone or something PC has just become a way of saying "I don't like what he said but I cant form a rational argument against it". Ultimately, the Anti-PC crowd are the ones telling me what I'm not permitted to say. If you cant see a difference between PC and Anti-PC these days... you've got a good grasp on the situation.
Actually, everyone is sick to death of people who are complaining about PC.
PC has become a byword for "something I don't like, but I cant form a rational argument against". Its used by people who are often bigoted to attempt to shut down arguments against their bigotry. To be frank, it's lost all it's power because it's just been too overused.
The thing is, PC isn't about politeness, it is, by a strict definition enforcing a political orthodoxy. The irony of this is, the anti-PC crowd are actually more guilty of this than the people they complain about. Write an anti-trump post using all manner of profanity, correctly if you know how (I certainly do) and watch the Anti-PC crowd go blue in the face complaining about it. Non-PC isn't about being profane or going against the grain... Its about enforcing someone else's political orthodoxy on you.
Being blunt, rude, pushy, etc. fails far more often than it works in my experience, being somebody who by nature is "straight forward". The few times it has worked it usually creates a longer-term resentment; i.e. burning bridges.
This. Straight forward means getting to the point, not waffling on about superfluous information and going on and on about things not related. it does not mean you are rude or pushy, you will still use some basic rules of politeness but you wont go to extremes. Nothing annoys me more than reading an email that waffles on and on without making a point. I mean for crying out loud, you'd think some people were paid by the word. Usually these people are trying to hide what they're saying (like so many communiques I've had from borough government departments here in England).
Sometimes you need to write long emails as there is a lot of information that needs to be passed. A basic rule of English writing applies here.
1. Introduction (make your point without specifics).
2. Supporting information (now be specific).
3. Additional information (now provide supporting evidence, peripheral information, caveats or "good to knows").
4. Recap your point.
So at the end of a long email, I'll put actionables into some bullet points because people will have forgotten what I started with.
I'm sorry, but naked women are anything but natural.
What fucking planet do you come from where being naked isn't natural? Are people on your planet born in scuba gear or something?
Whilst I firmly believe that sex is one of the most natural and wholesome things money can buy... the kind of naked women in Playboy are not natural. They have always, at the very least, been airbrushed the hell out of. Add to that the fact a lot of them are surgically altered (boob jobs, arse implants, now we've got thigh and ab implants), I wouldn't call them natural.
Also the notion that sex and sensuality is wrong and immoral comes from growing up in a religious environment. This also tends to be replaced with an unhealthy love of violence and weapons.
The Tea Party did the same to Obama. Remember those angry townhalls to block health care which ultimately handed the houses to the same Republicans today? They cried against executive orders. Now they have no problem with them and are outraged Democrats are doing the same back
You didn't think they were above a little hypocrisy did you... or even a lot of hypocrisy.
They'll also whinge bitterly about the same things they did to Obama being done to them. They made their bed, let them lie in it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I think her first response should have been to knock out his teeth.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is sexism in action. No one - certainly not this poster - would suggest that a man should knock out a woman's teeth for propositioning him, no matter how inappropriate it might be. But violence against a man for the same cause is apparently perfectly acceptable.
Nope, this just demonstrates you dont know what sexism is.
Sexism is not a difference between the sexes, as you have pointed out... rather it is discrimination based on a particular attribute. The GP did not advocate hitting him because he was male, he advocated hitting him because he was being an arsehole. If anything it was arseholist.
The thing is, it's only really western society that has the hang up agianst hitting women. Lots of countries, in particular developing catholic countries consider it perfectly acceptable for men to hit women. Take the Philippines for example, spousal abuse is perfectly legal there (and divorces are banned because Old Book says so). Yes it did offend my sensibilities when I saw it happen whilst I lived there, in fact it made me feel angrier than I've ever felt however I didn't do anything about it because I'm not an idiot and know how to control myself, even under extreme pressure.
Did you ever think why western societies like Europe and America have these compunctions against hitting women, it mostly comes down to the fact men have a physical advantage against women. We decided long ago that this was unfair and ingrained it in our social conscious that this advantage should not be exercised. So if anything, refusing to hit women is anti-sexist.
Of course this being a modern society, if you have to defend yourself against a woman then yes, defend... But then again if she's tough enough to throw punches, the average slashdotter wont be capable of fighting back. Myself, I'd consider it an absolute last resort, I cant even hit women who have had more self defence training than me in training.
1. Apparently the boss did not make sex a condition of continued employment. He's her boss. That's ALWAYS implied or always the risk.
Really? Then why was it OK when Bill Clinton had sex with an intern?
If you don't already know the answer to that... you should stay away from women.
Because it was consensual.
Being a boss does not automatically prevent you from propositioning a lower ranked employee. In fact I've seen a few relationships like this where both parties were happy. What would be wrong is the boss using their position to coerce an employee into a relationship or sexual act against their will... or conversely a subordinate using it to gain favour. Although both sides can abuse it, it is considered worse when a boss uses an employee because of the position of power they hold over them.
Speaking as a student of the real sciences, when we cannot observe something we cannot make claims about it being there.
Conversely, when you haven't observed something, you cannot make claims about it not being there.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you were a student of "real" sciences, you'd know that of course.
And as always, you'd never let your biases get in the way of revealing an uncomfortable truth.
Maybe you don't see it since you are not the target of it.
This.
In my experience, sexism is rife amongst environments where one sex is dominant. Same with race, religion and any other popular form of discrimination. Any mono-cultural environment breeds contempt of outsiders like a virus, or maybe that should be inbreeds. This is less of a problem in countries where minorities are permitted to participate in society (and as a result, integrate) but I've seen as serious resurgence of racism and xenophobia in all western countries of late, which is a shame as we had practically eliminated it in the 90's and 00's, at least in Australia.
I think a lot of people like to ignore these behaviours because it doesn't involve them and it's more trouble to fight than to ignore them in the workplace.
generic_rebuttal
Nonsensical_statement_regarding_plankton.
Every single one of the problems you cite about drugs is due to their prohibition, or at the very least exacerbated by it.
Exactly the same things happened during alcohol prohibition, but for some reason you people are too stupid to see the correlation and instead continue to think that doing more and harder of the same will get you different results.
Not quite. The medical problems are still based in chemistry. physically destructive drugs like Heroin and Krokodil are still going to destroy bodies even when decriminalised.
I largely agree with your point, but you only harm your own argument by ignoring the glaring fault I pointed out above.
You're probably thinking largely of Marijuana and LSD (the least destructive of the illicit drugs) possibly up to MDMA, cocaine and amphetamines. Here I think your point remains valid. However it gets into a grey area when talking about things like Crystal Meth. I could agree with decriminalising the former drugs I mentioned, but ignoring things like Meth, Heroin and other drugs that are actually destructive is foolhardy.
The problem in the US is with who the rules are enforced against. For a long time the user has been punished whilst the producers and distributors are largely ignored. That is patently stupid. In Australia and the UK, possessing a small amount of marijuana or LSD is a misdemeanour, you'll get a fine but nothing on your record. In order to get a serious penalty, you need to be selling or supplying.
Why the flying hell do cars not have a Rental setting that wipes all data with the press of a single button?!
Actually, many of these infotainment systems do have a factory reset function. You might have to tunnel into the settings to find it, but it is often there.
A couple of issues here. The GP asked specifically about hire cars. Hire cars are not going to include any special features specific to the the hire car industries because there's no profit in it. Rental companies wont pay extra, in fact they buy the cheapest spec possible for fleet rates.
The other reason is that manufacturers dont want a single button reset because inevitably some ditsy steering wheel attendant will press it and wipe all of their settings... and then sue the dealer/manufacturer for emotional distress or something.
That being said, I think this is going to become an industry for mechanics (and a small gold mine for dealers) as most people are not savvy enough to reset an infotainment system enough that old app connections will no longer work, so they'll need to pay someone to do it for them. It'll become another thing that you need to check has been done before buying a used car like HPI checks.
What makes me feel like this is just some bullshit marketng post is, how do you sell 0.4 of a phone, or 0.9 of a phone... All of those "units sold" should be whole numbers.
Erm... they're talking in percentages. When you're talking in the terms of 446 million units, a tenth of a percent is 460,000 units... Which is still significant.
They aren't selling 0.3 of a phone, they are taking 0.3% of the market which means they're selling 1.3 million phones.
What this report emphasises (without trying to say it) is that the windows phone market has been in decline for years. In 2015 I believe they had 2% and at their peak, 4%. What the report also doesn't say (because when they haven't got their tongue up Microsoft's arse, Gartner are vigorously trying to shove it up Apple's arse) is that the smartphone market is really the Android market.
Did someone think to sue State of London for all those cameras around?
Is the City of London operating "all those cameras" in contravention of the Act?
A better question is, are the governments of London operating all of those cameras? How many are private?
The oft-quoted number of eleventy bajillion cameras in London almost always include private CCTV cameras (which are in almost every country these days). Only a fraction of them are government owned.
Also, the City of London is a 3 KM square stretch of central London. There are 32 other administrative regions (boroughs) in London, each will run their own sets of CCTV which will make a smaller fraction of the total CCTV cameras in each borough. There isn't some central authority running all CCTV cameras (I imagine most Americans picture a thin Briton wearing a navy blue suit and matching bowler hat watching a bank of monitors without any facial expressions,,, not the case). The majority of cameras are privately owned.
Private or public, everyone has to follow the same rules. We enshrine privacy in our own homes, back when I lived in OZ I put up a CCTV camera on my own property because our cars were constantly being broken into (not that the lazy sods from WAPOL would do anything) but I had to ensure they didn't point directly into anyone else's house. I recorded the footpath and road, but kept it clear of my neighbours yards. In sane countries like the UK and Australia we like to apply the same rules to public and private organisations as much as possible.
And hopefully Apple will get it right.
With Apple's track record of implementing Android features, they'll do it completely wrong.
I've never encountered an Android phone "doing it wrong", this goes from the first HTC Dream to my latest Nexus 5X. If you're accidentally pressing the soft buttons, you're doing something horribly wrong as they need to be pressed properly to work and have no function if held down too long. In fact, I'd prefer the soft buttons to be more sensitive on my 5X.
... in that I never heard of it before and don't give a shit now that I have.
OK, Youtube "star" who got a lot of view doing video game reviews/walkthroughts decided to produce a very off colour joke for shits and giggles, who then got fired for it.
Its not really a big deal. I'm pretty sure if you or I turned up to work wearing a sign that said "death to jews" we'd get the sack too.
I'm not "defending guns". I'm giving my personal history. I'm a gun owner for nearly 40 years and I still believe in strict background checks for owning guns, and in the right of local communities to make their own gun laws. Most of the gun owners I know feel the same.
And the vast majority with the politics your defending would feel the same.
The problem you detractors have is that they need to turn it into an all or nothing us-v-them debate without realising that many of the people they're talking about don't want bans, just sensible restrictions. I'm an Australian and a former gun owner, no horror story there, but moving made it easier to sell them rather than keep them. If I feel the need to squeeze off a few rounds, there are plenty of places I can do that, so I have no desire to see guns banned.
The problem is, this kind of thinking is the kind of thing the OP hates because it depolarises the issue. I'm a centrist (which makes me a leftie in the eyes of the extreme right), so for me (and possibly you) to support gun ownership is something that needs to be stamped out in order for me to fit into their world view.
He taught you to hate fascism so rigorously that you've become something of a fascist yourself about it.
Gads, I hope he has passed on so there is no chance he could see what a fuck you are here on Slashdot.
I saw nothing fascist about what Pope Ratzo wrote.
He just pointed out that the GP's post contained nothing from reality, much like your post.
You know who doesn't get the irony of fighting fascism with fascism?
The leftists.
You know who doesn't understand what Irony is... You.
Or leftism and/or fascism.
By definition, a fascist cant be a leftist as Fascism is an extreme right political philosophy, The left equivalent of Fascism is called Communism and ironically enough... they are the traditional enemies of fascism. It wasn't the west Hitler wanted to conquer, it was Russia where he sought his Lebensraum.
Also, those who defeated the Nazi's like Churchill and Eisenhower were actually very left of where today's politicians are. They would be left of Obama and Blair, definitely left of Cameron, May, Turnbull and Bush... and extremely left of Trump.
The irony is, you've gone so far towards the extreme authoritarian right, you don't even know what the left is anymore.
I don't think it really matters, it costs almost nothing to defend these cases for Uber. They're just trying to defer spinning up a big HR division between now and in five years when Uber replaces most of their human drivers with driverless cars.
Awaken from your dreamy state.
Uber is just trying to undercut existing competition by ignoring the rules other players are forced to abide by... And complaining bitterly when said rules are applied to them.
Even though they're getting away with this for the most part, they're still losing money hand over fist. Uber will go out of business within a few years. Seceding from the Brazilian market will be the beginning of the end (Easy Taxi is the go-to app for taxi hailing in South America).
a tech company has to defend or justify spending money on R&D...for tech.
I've spotted your problem.
It certainly is news when a marketing company spends money on R&D. Especailly when spending increases.
What Apple have said here is that their marketing is no longer enough to win customers, they actually need to compete with other technology products. I predicted this 2 years ago as China was the last significant market left to move into, once that was done their userbase would start dropping because people are already falling off the Apple bandwagon in western countries.
Apple is all but admitting that their competitors products are as good as, if not better than their own with this move.
Not joking. I live in London, we've tried a couple of experiments by just stopping, as one does, and morons on mobiles (may I suggest the hashtag #moronsonmobiles) just bump into you. A few apologise, most do not. So, let's get rid of the lot. Nothing that you need to do on your phone is that important, even looking at pictures of cats.
I tend to use the acronym MOP (morons On Phones) for drivers too busy with their head buried in their phones on the road.
MOP's in cars is much less of a problem in England than they were in Australia. Perth police did a weekend sting on phones whilst driving and issued 700 files in 48 hours... and it's not like they didn't advertise the fact this sting was happening for at least a week beforehand.
However back to London, there was a report on ITV a few months back about a spate of "brazen" (ITVs word, not mine) phone thefts in London. I took one look at the CCTV footage they broadcast and immediately said "You're an idiot for walking down a busy street with your head buried in your phone". Theives were snatching phones out of hands with remarkable ease because people had no idea what was going on around them, no situational awareness what so ever.
Being a non-native to the UK, I'm often using my phone for waking directions in an unfamiliar place. However I dont walk around with my head buried in it because that would just be stupid. Basic rules of politeness and self preservation say that I should move to a wall, out of the way of others before looking at maps, messages or cat videos.
This will just lead to browsers muting sound by default
Most employers are blocking Facebook. This is more a problem with phones which are always switched to full volume. I turned off autoplay ages ago. I just need to figure out how to completely get rid of the Instashit ads.
I thought Apple was a pretty capable company, but they can't design a phone that isn't a hazard to repair?
Why are you assuming this isn't by design.
Apple could make an easy to repair phone like other companies, but where's the profit in that? How will they sell the next version if old phones keep working for years on end and there aren't any significant improvements.
Apple deliberately makes them hard to repair to generate repeat sales. That's why they're fighting against your right to repair.
You do know that this technology has been around for a few good years now and most people not only know what you said, but many actually have these things at home right?
This isn't some pie in the sky physics lab experiment that Apple are courageously innovating first to market. ...
Actually last to market may be a more correct way of putting it.
And on that wireless charging been a resounding failure to launch.
Apple as usual is late to the party with drinks no-one likes. They're the kind of person who brings tofu burgers to a BBQ.
PC appropriateness is relative. For example, if I called a Trump-voting evangelical a "sky-man-fairy-tale-worshiping nutcase" they will have a fit. That's my non-PC way of describing their religion.
No, that'd just be you being an asshole.
Nope, you're just demonstrating that the Anti-PC crowd are a bunch of whiny hypocrites.
It seems you want the capability to complain about things you don't like whilst everyone else has to silently accept what you support... Which is ironically what the Anti-PC crowd complains about. The GP insulted your precious Trump whilst the GGP held up Trumps insults to others as a prime example of being Anti-PC.
Also he was being very polite, my Scottish relatives describe Trump as a "Cheeto-faced buttplug".
Calling someone or something PC has just become a way of saying "I don't like what he said but I cant form a rational argument against it". Ultimately, the Anti-PC crowd are the ones telling me what I'm not permitted to say. If you cant see a difference between PC and Anti-PC these days... you've got a good grasp on the situation.
sick to death of PC and
Actually, everyone is sick to death of people who are complaining about PC.
PC has become a byword for "something I don't like, but I cant form a rational argument against". Its used by people who are often bigoted to attempt to shut down arguments against their bigotry. To be frank, it's lost all it's power because it's just been too overused.
The thing is, PC isn't about politeness, it is, by a strict definition enforcing a political orthodoxy. The irony of this is, the anti-PC crowd are actually more guilty of this than the people they complain about. Write an anti-trump post using all manner of profanity, correctly if you know how (I certainly do) and watch the Anti-PC crowd go blue in the face complaining about it. Non-PC isn't about being profane or going against the grain... Its about enforcing someone else's political orthodoxy on you.
Being blunt, rude, pushy, etc. fails far more often than it works in my experience, being somebody who by nature is "straight forward". The few times it has worked it usually creates a longer-term resentment; i.e. burning bridges.
This. Straight forward means getting to the point, not waffling on about superfluous information and going on and on about things not related. it does not mean you are rude or pushy, you will still use some basic rules of politeness but you wont go to extremes. Nothing annoys me more than reading an email that waffles on and on without making a point. I mean for crying out loud, you'd think some people were paid by the word. Usually these people are trying to hide what they're saying (like so many communiques I've had from borough government departments here in England).
Sometimes you need to write long emails as there is a lot of information that needs to be passed. A basic rule of English writing applies here.
1. Introduction (make your point without specifics).
2. Supporting information (now be specific).
3. Additional information (now provide supporting evidence, peripheral information, caveats or "good to knows").
4. Recap your point.
So at the end of a long email, I'll put actionables into some bullet points because people will have forgotten what I started with.
I'm sorry, but naked women are anything but natural.
What fucking planet do you come from where being naked isn't natural? Are people on your planet born in scuba gear or something?
Whilst I firmly believe that sex is one of the most natural and wholesome things money can buy... the kind of naked women in Playboy are not natural. They have always, at the very least, been airbrushed the hell out of. Add to that the fact a lot of them are surgically altered (boob jobs, arse implants, now we've got thigh and ab implants), I wouldn't call them natural.
Also the notion that sex and sensuality is wrong and immoral comes from growing up in a religious environment. This also tends to be replaced with an unhealthy love of violence and weapons.
The Tea Party did the same to Obama. Remember those angry townhalls to block health care which ultimately handed the houses to the same Republicans today? They cried against executive orders. Now they have no problem with them and are outraged Democrats are doing the same back
You didn't think they were above a little hypocrisy did you... or even a lot of hypocrisy.
They'll also whinge bitterly about the same things they did to Obama being done to them. They made their bed, let them lie in it.