I voted for Trump, because I can't stand the Clintons.
Everything you said after this was bullshit.
You didn't vote for Trump because he was more qualified. He wasn't.
You didn't vote for Trump because he had better policies: He didn't.
You didn't vote for Trump because he was a more stable candidate: He wasn't.
You didn't vote for Trump because he wasn't dangerous: He is.
You didn't vote for Trump because you want good government: He was always the worst candidate.
You voted for Trump because you hated something else. Don't pretend he was the better candidate, every act and objective measure demonstrates that to be false. At least be honest, you voted for him because you care more about seeing your team win politics than about your country.
Who the hell is getting any of their news from Facebook? It doesn't even offer news as a service.
Maybe you've seen the "Trending" column.
Although that tends to reference a source, often the source is untrustworthy like Fox News or the Daily Mail.
However the real problem is fake news, often presented on a blog with little or no supporting evidence, being posted and shared (I.E. going viral).
Although I consider news from FB to be inherently untrustworthy, I still get some news from there. Mostly about minor interests that my friends have (I.E. gaming, motor industry, so on and so forth).
It is possible to get news from multiple sources. BBC. Jerusalem Post. Al Jazeera. RT. And others.
Why are you throwing in the BBC and Al Jazeera with RT. These publications are nothing alike.
I can only assume you haven't read them.
But aren't they all biased? Yes, they are. Just like CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews.
Now I know you haven't read them.
Organisations like the BBC and Al Jazeera separate opinion from fact and write factual articles as not to let bias interfere. They present, as best they can, an entirely factual report for which the reader can make their own inferences from. Opinion columns are clearly marked and separated from news and when an error is published, they will issue a correction.
Fox News on the other hand deliberately confuses opinion with fact so that they can push an agenda and when the facts contradict their agenda, can present fabcrications without making their audience suspicious of the fact they've just been lied to. When lies are exposed, they are never corrected.
I can only assume you've been subjected to the later for so long you can no longer tell the difference.
News is verifiable fact.
Fake news is rumour, inuendo and outright fabrications presented as fact.
That, and his name. Very dangerous combination, darkened skin (not black) and middle-eastern sounding name. Must be terrorist. Works at JPL so even has access to rockets.
Those of us who've had experience dealing with people from that part of the world, his name sounds more Indian in origin... And his skin is not even that dark.
If Apple wants Banks to cooperate by opening their payment network to iPhones , Apple must open up the iPhone NFC to mobile wallets from Banks. A competition commission cannot say its anti-competitive for incumbents to block Apple Pay but its not anti-competitive for Apple to not allow access to the NFC chip in an iPhone.
Actually, if Apple wants the restrictions lifted, they need to become their own bank. This means complying with PCI (Payment Card Industry) regulations as well as local regulations in each market they operate as a bank in. This is why smaller banks tend to stay in only a few markets whilst giants like Citi or HSBC have global reach.
Right now, Apple Pay (and Google's equivalent) is just a wrapper for a credit card. That means another issuer that is ensuring compliance with PCI and local regulations, this also gives them all the power they need to impose their own restrictions. Until you pay money into an Apple account like you would any other current or credit account then Apple doesn't get a say in any restrictions they have imposed on them.
The problem is, Apple doesn't want to have the bother of complying with regulations. So they'll complain loudly but end up crawling back with their tail between their legs because they wont become a bank.
Why shut up? One of the few benefits left in this country is that we are allowed to criticize our government. This is actual our moral and civic duty to bitch at the government, otherwise the power goes to their heads and they start turning authoritarian. Democracy is not just something that happens every 2 years after which we go home and put up with whatever bullshit the government spits out.
That's the point.
The same people who whinged and bitched about Obama now want you to shut up about their golden boy. They're so brainwashed that they cant even see they're party to destroying freedom in the US. If it means keeping the other team down, they'll happily sacrifice everything.
Also dont get used to being able to criticise your government. They're already eroding that right by going after the press that isn't towing the party line. Those people telling you to shut up over the internet, they could be out in brown shirts telling you to do it in person sooner than you think.
I'm sure he's going to get right on that mission of removing the political class from power now that he is part of it. Literally lol.
Which you begin by limiting who can oppose you.
Which is exactly what they are trying to do by labelling any media outlet that disagrees with them as fake news. Eliminate the freedom of the press then control information. Once you do that, you can limit who becomes part of the ruling party. Sounds like its straight out of a story thats on sale for $19.84.
Either way, the fundamental problem with the concept of UBI is that it assumes money can always turn have-nots into haves
Your fundamental problem is that you dont understand the fundamentals of UBI.
UBI isn't a new social security program, it's a complete replacement of social security.
The idea of both UBI and other social security programs isn't to turn have-nots into haves but to ensure that people aren't living on the streets and are in a position where they can better themselves. The idea of UBI is instead of only giving money to only those who are demonstrated to need it (which costs a small fortune to manage) is that we give UBI to everyone and what you earn on top of that is on top of that. UBI is about providing the basic needs of life, not a comfortable life (you'll still need to work for that).
UBI will not stop people from getting jobs or working hard to better their lives. It will stop people from turning to things like petty crime, selling drugs or prostitution to support themselves.
In fact UBI is going to increase the gap between haves and have nots by making popular cities impossible for those on UBI impossible to afford to live in. Basic housing will be out in Bumfuck, Alamama, not in the middle of San Francisco.
Whether you agree or disagree with it, you cant argue that UBI is going to make people who dont work wealthy. Not even Communism would have worked like that (if it worked of course).
Actually rail is more efficient per ton pre mile that any form of ground transportation going. It's not because it moves a lot of stuff, but that the steel on steel rolling resistance is almost nothing compared to a truck with rubber on asphalt. This is why you CAN tow a mile long train with couple of locomotives....
Rail's problem is the infrastructure costs are really high. Keeping miles and miles of rails in useable condition is hard and labor intensive. Maintaining rolling stock costs money... Getting that ton of freight from point a to b doesn't cost that much in fuel, but in labor, logistics and infrastructure suck up a lot of cost.
There are two big problems to adapting mass rail cargo.
1. You need rail to go everywhere. Track and rolling stock maintenance has a minimum price that is pretty high. Sure if you fully utilise it, its cheap per mile/per ton, but if you're not fully utilising it you can lose a lot of money very fast. If we're only moving a few tonnes to small towns, using a Double B is more cost effective. Rail cargo makes a lot of sense going city to city, which is how most of the world uses it, but little sense servicing everywhere is expensive. This doesn't even consider the cost of loading and unloading facilities.
2. Here in Europe and the UK, commuter rail is everywhere, every station is serviced every hour or sooner, especially on a main line. So freight needs to work around that even just getting from port to distribution centre it's either got to fit in between passenger trains, travel outside of passenger train hours (basically 1 to 5 AM) or use a separate rail network. Its not unusual for cargo rail to have a separate network to commuter rail.
These two factors tend to limit cargo rail to travelling from distribution point to distribution point (I.E port to DC and DC to port).
I'm not sure if it's intentional but wouldn't "Zenefits" translate to "Zero Benefits"? to most folks? Why would anyone want to hire a company called that? Also I seem to recall when you start your company name with "Z" you often end up at the end of the phone book so there's potential that you're doing accounting fraud or something questionable so you want to be the last company folks call? Anyhow, wierd...
Actually to most people it would be a portmanteau of Zen and Benefits.
Of course my experience with benefits/HR outsourcers is that they dont provide any benefits. Here, pay full list price for this outdated laptop... yep, fuck off, I'll go to Amazon. But we've got cheap gym memberships... yeah, 1 pound off at some craphole gym in Birmingham thats still more expensive than local gyms, what are savings.
Also, no-one uses the phone book any more. It's all about your page rank (and even just showing up on Google).
it ousted its founding CEO, Parker Conrad, over revelations that it flouted state regulations for selling health insurance.
In today's world, you don't sack the CEO for flouting regulations. You do it brazenly, and then complain that regulations are hurting your business model (See, Uber, AirBnB).
Ironically enough, this is the fate Uber (and possibly AirBNB) have in store.
Despite flaunting the rules, Uber is losing money hand over fist. Even in places where it's legal like the UK they aren't making any money.
Blanket bans of sources considered poor news sources is a slippery slope, a slippery slope I say!
FD:I just posted a link to the Daily Mail in the last/. article.
And for that you should be ashamed.
Also you should be ashamed for calling this censorship. Its not, it's a private organisation setting their own rules in their own house. You haven't been censored, you've been told that they think the Daily Mail is unreliable and full of falsehoods... which if you've read any decent news source is blindingly obvious.
If the Daily Mail were to accidentally print something true and accurate, they would not be the only news source to do so. So in that regard, absolutely nothing is being hidden from you.
Wikipedia wants to be considered a reliable reference site, this means they need to be mindful of their sources. The DM is known for deliberately printing lies, slander and well, crap. 90% of their stories are celebrity trash that would make E! blush, the other 9.99999999999999% are exaggerations or outright fabrications to suit the homophobic and racist tendencies of the owner.
I consider the Daily Mail to be an unreliable and often, utterly incorrect source of information. I'll happily and openly state that I think anyone using it as a reference source is a complete Muppet who struggles to know which end of a spoon to hold... but I wont stop you from reading it, I'll just point out you're an idiot for doing so. That isn't censorship, if you're offended by it, thats your problem.
quinoa, a hugely popular "super-food" because it is well balanced and gluten-free
Seriously, wtf? When and why did gluten become an evil boogeyman?
Because you cant sell bullshit without first providing the bull.
The alleged problem with gluten is that it's a carborhydrate and the current dieting fad is low carb diets. Of course there is nothing wrong with carbs being eaten in a suitable amount, but not in excess (much the same as fats, sugars, salt or whaterver the next craze is). The real problem with Gluten is that it gives marketers a new demon to sell to people with fewer than 2 brain cells. After all the previous great satans of sugar, salt and fat just aren't shifting overpriced proucts any more.
There is no such thing as a "super-food" and arsenic, polonium and bleach are all gluten free. Never trust buzzwords.
And whilst we're on the subject, organic food is any food that contains organic molecules.
I guess there's a reason that 70% of the British public are in favour of nationalising the railways.
I doubt it's that high (prob numbers from the Guardian). However if the plan was to corpotise the rail network, I think it would be closer to 90%. Corportisation allows government ownership whilst freeing the organisation from govt bureaucracy. Similar to what happens with the BBC, government acts as a shareholder, they can choose who is in charge but gets little say in how the business can run. Its the best of both worlds, private sector efficiency without the requirements to increase profit year on year.
Expect the 'Yet more big brother' articles from UK to ramp up a few notches after the Brexit, when they will be the law unto themselves to "protect against terrorists". We had a quiet few years after the last labour government finished
Its not the big brother articles that concern me post brexit. Most Britons will be far more concerned with simply having enough money to put food on the table.
The pound crashed by 10% overnight after the poll and hasn't even looked like it might be considering even possibly entertaining the idea of potentially thinking about recovery in the last six months. So its fair to say it's going to be down for the long term... and nothing has even happened yet. This will get a lot worse when something does happen.
So anyways, stop your fear mongering. Western cultures (where most of this is happening right now) arent going anywhere.
This, if your culture is so weak that it can be destroyed by a minority entering your nation, it deserves to be destroyed.
Western (read: English, American, Canadian, Australian, so on and so forth) isn't going to be destroyed by foreigners. The only ones powerful enough to destroy it are ourselves... and fear mongerers are the ones trying to do just that. To keep our culture alive and strong, we need to marginalise the racists and xenophobes who want to divide us and make us weak... That is what the racists are afraid of, not the destruction of western culture but their own decent into irrelevance.
So people with these devices get an advantage. So what?
Players with TVs that have low processing latency have an advantage.
Which is so minute that it is easily overcome by a modicum of skill.
Players with a fast and stable Internet connection have an advantage.
Which is so minute that it is easily overcome by a modicum of skill.
Players living closer to the hosting servers probably have an advantage.
Which is so minute that it is easily overcome by a modicum of skill.
Players jacked up on caffeine probably have an advantage.
Actually, excessive caffeine tends to make people jittery and irrational, so this is patently false.
There are many factors that can influence your success in a multiplayer FPS. Let's not pretend that forcing console players to use a first-party controller makes everything fair.
The thing is, the difference between the KB and mouse compared to a controller is so great that no amount of skill makes it a fair competition. Take one of the leading players, give them a console controller then let a mediocre player use a KB and Mouse, there is no doubt who will win.
You need to stop pretending that a console controller is in any way comparable to the KB and mouse.
The next presidential decrete sets the number of H1-B visas to be given out the next 4 years to 0, while congress gets to pass a law to end the H1-B visas completely.
The more batshit insane he gets, the closer to impeachment he becomes.
The republicans will happily throw him under the bus if he starts to make the republicans unpopular. I'm sure Mike Pence is going to be a very complicit puppet after Trump is impeached.
BTW, is "decrete" a portmanteau of decree and secrete... because that seems fitting.
"I support the ban - our safety comes ahead of their convenience"
But does it increase your safety. What about other countries, what about those that get through anyway, what about 9/11 terrorists, 15 where from Saudi Arabia, two where from the United Arab Emirates, and one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon.
This.
Two robberies occurred on Friday, one was reported on by every major outlet in the UK, the other I heard about through a specialist forum.
The major news item is that someone robbed a convenience store in France whilst wearing a burka. This got national attention despite not even being in the nation and the robber only got away with a few hundred Euro at best. However because the I word was used, this was clearly the crime of the century despite the fact it was just another petty robbery which at least 10 of which go unreported in the UK media per day.
Now the other robbery, that was small time. Only 3 million GBP of engines were stolen from the Jagual/Land Rover plant in Solihull. Nothing of note really. They only used white Scania trucks, not like they were wearing a burka or anything truly dangerous like that. I found out about this non-event through the Car Meme's facebook page which linked to PistonHeads thread that referenced the Birmingham mail. As this was nothing compared to the Burka Burglar, I didn't see a report of it anywhere else.
Mention the M or I words and people lose their shit, no matter how unlikely the risk is.
Some of the common issues include low sexual desire, difficulty meeting women, and performance issues.
I can see why difficulty meeting potential sexual partners would be a problem if you have significant sexual desire, and likewise with performance issues. But why would a lack of sexual desire be a problem? It seems like it should make life easier. Let the rabbits get on with the procreating while you do whatever it is you are interested in.
Overwork (read fatigue) leads to lowered libido in young adults (willing to bet old ones too). This is a common phenomena in modern Japan as not only work, but family pressures have made young people more and more insular. Often even if they have the drive, they just don't have the time with their work commitments.
Given that working in Silicon valley often means working long hours and even though the pay is good, the living costs are extreme. Its likely that the long hours are eliminating the drive and living costs are eliminating the means (dating in the western world is pretty expensive). Add to this that most nerds are introverts.
I believe people are becoming ruder because our sense of community is being eroded. There is no "us" anymore, no sense of belonging together (or belonging anywhere). This is the sad legacy of globalism.
I don't think society is getting ruder, in fact its the opposite.
Also I cant see the link to globalism. Sounds like you're trying to frame the argument to blame something completely unrelated.
I visited Croatia the other day. There was a display of photos somewhere, and the corresponding descriptions showed a great deal of nationalistic pride. It felt like a breath of fresh air: people actually proud of what they were, and what they did. For one moment I felt that sense of belonging somewhere - and I'm not even Croatian...
And here it is.
The problem about showing patriotism in many western nations is that certain people have relentlessly attempted to tie patriotism to nationalism. Sounds like they've been successful on you.
Nationalistic pride is a bad thing as that says your nation can do no wrong. It is the belief that you are innately superior because you were born on this side of the border.
Patriotic pride is not such a bad thing. It says you take pride in the accomplishments of your nation and your peers in the advancement of your nation.
A nationalist is incapable of seeing flaw in their nation, a Patriot not only acknowledges that their nation can be flawed, but works to fix them.
The problem here in England... in fact I'd say its the same problem in the US as well as Australia is that racist and xenophobic groups, such as the EDL in England have completely managed to co-opt the idea of patriotism to sell their own brand of hate. They've tied the idea of being a proud Englishman to their hate of foreigners and religions they don't like. I think this is a shame because there is a lot to be proud of in English culture, not the least of which is its openness and acceptance of others. However groups like the EDL or UKIP would have others believe you were one of them for being a proud Englishman or woman which as I said, is a bloody disgrace.
Being proud of where you came from (I'm an Australian who lives in England) is not about beating down others, sadly that is what passes for Nationalistic pride in the west these days.
Aggressive forum users are a sign of the failure of the moderators.
The specific behaviour the OP describes is more a sign of the type of forum they're participating in, it's, unfortunately, fairly common behaviour among geek/techie personalities. Go to a forum dealing with, say, gardening or pets or childcare and you'll very rarely see this sort of thing, the standard response there is sympathy and advice. So the best advice perhaps is to hold your nose and ignore the crap, or try posting to several different technical forums in the hope that you'll get good advice from at least one of them.
Moderation, I agree, is one way of dealing with this, e.g. Stackexchange does a pretty good job of keeping things on-topic, but sometimes you just have to mentally lint-filter the crap in the hope of finding the nuggets of good advice.
I'm present on quite a few forums outside of IT, mostly travel and motoring. Aggressive behaviour, which on forums is mostly passive aggressive behaviour, is definitely not limited to technical forums. Any type of forum, if poorly moderated will devolve into a shit slinging competition simply because some people can get away with it. Parents forums have been amongst the most vicious I've seen unless they are strictly moderated (try telling a parent they're raising a bad kid... their response gets worse the more true it is).
Moderation is a tricky thing to get right, under-moderating will result in forums being ruled by trolls. Over-moderation will result in good users being afraid to post. Biased moderation will result in a stagnant user base because people who dont like an echo chamber will go elsewhere. Slashdot manages to do all of these things, but none of them particularly well so failure it tends to balance everything out.
Conflict and disagreement is inevitable in any forum, online or otherwise. That is not automatically a bad thing. Disagreement and conflict handled properly can be constructive as it improves and strengthens ideas. Whether it's constructive or destructive depends on the skill of the moderators. A good mod will allow some conflict and disagreement but, like a well trained butler, knows when it's time to step in and control the situation. Its inevitable that some debates become heated, even a good and constructive member can fly off the handle and it is not always the fault of another user, even if they did set them off, good mods control these situations just before they get out of hand.
Slashdot Mirror
I voted for Trump, because I can't stand the Clintons.
Everything you said after this was bullshit.
You didn't vote for Trump because he was more qualified. He wasn't.
You didn't vote for Trump because he had better policies: He didn't.
You didn't vote for Trump because he was a more stable candidate: He wasn't.
You didn't vote for Trump because he wasn't dangerous: He is.
You didn't vote for Trump because you want good government: He was always the worst candidate.
You voted for Trump because you hated something else. Don't pretend he was the better candidate, every act and objective measure demonstrates that to be false. At least be honest, you voted for him because you care more about seeing your team win politics than about your country.
You are what is broken in a democracy.
Who the hell is getting any of their news from Facebook? It doesn't even offer news as a service.
Maybe you've seen the "Trending" column.
Although that tends to reference a source, often the source is untrustworthy like Fox News or the Daily Mail.
However the real problem is fake news, often presented on a blog with little or no supporting evidence, being posted and shared (I.E. going viral).
Although I consider news from FB to be inherently untrustworthy, I still get some news from there. Mostly about minor interests that my friends have (I.E. gaming, motor industry, so on and so forth).
I don't have FaceTwit. Are there any others?
It is possible to get news from multiple sources. BBC. Jerusalem Post. Al Jazeera. RT. And others.
Why are you throwing in the BBC and Al Jazeera with RT. These publications are nothing alike.
I can only assume you haven't read them.
But aren't they all biased? Yes, they are. Just like CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews.
Now I know you haven't read them.
Organisations like the BBC and Al Jazeera separate opinion from fact and write factual articles as not to let bias interfere. They present, as best they can, an entirely factual report for which the reader can make their own inferences from. Opinion columns are clearly marked and separated from news and when an error is published, they will issue a correction.
Fox News on the other hand deliberately confuses opinion with fact so that they can push an agenda and when the facts contradict their agenda, can present fabcrications without making their audience suspicious of the fact they've just been lied to. When lies are exposed, they are never corrected.
I can only assume you've been subjected to the later for so long you can no longer tell the difference.
News is verifiable fact.
Fake news is rumour, inuendo and outright fabrications presented as fact.
That, and his name. Very dangerous combination, darkened skin (not black) and middle-eastern sounding name. Must be terrorist. Works at JPL so even has access to rockets.
Those of us who've had experience dealing with people from that part of the world, his name sounds more Indian in origin... And his skin is not even that dark.
If Apple wants Banks to cooperate by opening their payment network to iPhones , Apple must open up the iPhone NFC to mobile wallets from Banks. A competition commission cannot say its anti-competitive for incumbents to block Apple Pay but its not anti-competitive for Apple to not allow access to the NFC chip in an iPhone.
Actually, if Apple wants the restrictions lifted, they need to become their own bank. This means complying with PCI (Payment Card Industry) regulations as well as local regulations in each market they operate as a bank in. This is why smaller banks tend to stay in only a few markets whilst giants like Citi or HSBC have global reach.
Right now, Apple Pay (and Google's equivalent) is just a wrapper for a credit card. That means another issuer that is ensuring compliance with PCI and local regulations, this also gives them all the power they need to impose their own restrictions. Until you pay money into an Apple account like you would any other current or credit account then Apple doesn't get a say in any restrictions they have imposed on them.
The problem is, Apple doesn't want to have the bother of complying with regulations. So they'll complain loudly but end up crawling back with their tail between their legs because they wont become a bank.
Why shut up? One of the few benefits left in this country is that we are allowed to criticize our government. This is actual our moral and civic duty to bitch at the government, otherwise the power goes to their heads and they start turning authoritarian. Democracy is not just something that happens every 2 years after which we go home and put up with whatever bullshit the government spits out.
That's the point.
The same people who whinged and bitched about Obama now want you to shut up about their golden boy. They're so brainwashed that they cant even see they're party to destroying freedom in the US. If it means keeping the other team down, they'll happily sacrifice everything.
Also dont get used to being able to criticise your government. They're already eroding that right by going after the press that isn't towing the party line. Those people telling you to shut up over the internet, they could be out in brown shirts telling you to do it in person sooner than you think.
I'm sure he's going to get right on that mission of removing the political class from power now that he is part of it. Literally lol.
Which you begin by limiting who can oppose you.
Which is exactly what they are trying to do by labelling any media outlet that disagrees with them as fake news. Eliminate the freedom of the press then control information. Once you do that, you can limit who becomes part of the ruling party. Sounds like its straight out of a story thats on sale for $19.84.
Your fundamental problem is that you dont understand the fundamentals of UBI.
UBI isn't a new social security program, it's a complete replacement of social security.
The idea of both UBI and other social security programs isn't to turn have-nots into haves but to ensure that people aren't living on the streets and are in a position where they can better themselves. The idea of UBI is instead of only giving money to only those who are demonstrated to need it (which costs a small fortune to manage) is that we give UBI to everyone and what you earn on top of that is on top of that. UBI is about providing the basic needs of life, not a comfortable life (you'll still need to work for that).
UBI will not stop people from getting jobs or working hard to better their lives. It will stop people from turning to things like petty crime, selling drugs or prostitution to support themselves.
In fact UBI is going to increase the gap between haves and have nots by making popular cities impossible for those on UBI impossible to afford to live in. Basic housing will be out in Bumfuck, Alamama, not in the middle of San Francisco.
Whether you agree or disagree with it, you cant argue that UBI is going to make people who dont work wealthy. Not even Communism would have worked like that (if it worked of course).
Actually rail is more efficient per ton pre mile that any form of ground transportation going. It's not because it moves a lot of stuff, but that the steel on steel rolling resistance is almost nothing compared to a truck with rubber on asphalt. This is why you CAN tow a mile long train with couple of locomotives....
Rail's problem is the infrastructure costs are really high. Keeping miles and miles of rails in useable condition is hard and labor intensive. Maintaining rolling stock costs money... Getting that ton of freight from point a to b doesn't cost that much in fuel, but in labor, logistics and infrastructure suck up a lot of cost.
There are two big problems to adapting mass rail cargo.
1. You need rail to go everywhere. Track and rolling stock maintenance has a minimum price that is pretty high. Sure if you fully utilise it, its cheap per mile/per ton, but if you're not fully utilising it you can lose a lot of money very fast. If we're only moving a few tonnes to small towns, using a Double B is more cost effective. Rail cargo makes a lot of sense going city to city, which is how most of the world uses it, but little sense servicing everywhere is expensive. This doesn't even consider the cost of loading and unloading facilities.
2. Here in Europe and the UK, commuter rail is everywhere, every station is serviced every hour or sooner, especially on a main line. So freight needs to work around that even just getting from port to distribution centre it's either got to fit in between passenger trains, travel outside of passenger train hours (basically 1 to 5 AM) or use a separate rail network. Its not unusual for cargo rail to have a separate network to commuter rail.
These two factors tend to limit cargo rail to travelling from distribution point to distribution point (I.E port to DC and DC to port).
I'm not sure if it's intentional but wouldn't "Zenefits" translate to "Zero Benefits"? to most folks? Why would anyone want to hire a company called that? Also I seem to recall when you start your company name with "Z" you often end up at the end of the phone book so there's potential that you're doing accounting fraud or something questionable so you want to be the last company folks call? Anyhow, wierd...
Actually to most people it would be a portmanteau of Zen and Benefits.
Of course my experience with benefits/HR outsourcers is that they dont provide any benefits. Here, pay full list price for this outdated laptop... yep, fuck off, I'll go to Amazon. But we've got cheap gym memberships... yeah, 1 pound off at some craphole gym in Birmingham thats still more expensive than local gyms, what are savings.
Also, no-one uses the phone book any more. It's all about your page rank (and even just showing up on Google).
In today's world, you don't sack the CEO for flouting regulations. You do it brazenly, and then complain that regulations are hurting your business model (See, Uber, AirBnB).
Ironically enough, this is the fate Uber (and possibly AirBNB) have in store.
Despite flaunting the rules, Uber is losing money hand over fist. Even in places where it's legal like the UK they aren't making any money.
Blanket bans of sources considered poor news sources is a slippery slope, a slippery slope I say!
FD:I just posted a link to the Daily Mail in the last /. article.
And for that you should be ashamed.
Also you should be ashamed for calling this censorship. Its not, it's a private organisation setting their own rules in their own house. You haven't been censored, you've been told that they think the Daily Mail is unreliable and full of falsehoods... which if you've read any decent news source is blindingly obvious.
If the Daily Mail were to accidentally print something true and accurate, they would not be the only news source to do so. So in that regard, absolutely nothing is being hidden from you.
Wikipedia wants to be considered a reliable reference site, this means they need to be mindful of their sources. The DM is known for deliberately printing lies, slander and well, crap. 90% of their stories are celebrity trash that would make E! blush, the other 9.99999999999999% are exaggerations or outright fabrications to suit the homophobic and racist tendencies of the owner.
I consider the Daily Mail to be an unreliable and often, utterly incorrect source of information. I'll happily and openly state that I think anyone using it as a reference source is a complete Muppet who struggles to know which end of a spoon to hold... but I wont stop you from reading it, I'll just point out you're an idiot for doing so. That isn't censorship, if you're offended by it, thats your problem.
The Daily Mail has always been an absolute dreadful comic, calling it a newspaper is just wrong as it is nothing more than sensationalized fiction.
Thats why we tend to call it a tabloid, as in tabloid journalism, not the tabloid format, rather than a newspaper.
quinoa, a hugely popular "super-food" because it is well balanced and gluten-free
Seriously, wtf? When and why did gluten become an evil boogeyman?
Because you cant sell bullshit without first providing the bull.
The alleged problem with gluten is that it's a carborhydrate and the current dieting fad is low carb diets. Of course there is nothing wrong with carbs being eaten in a suitable amount, but not in excess (much the same as fats, sugars, salt or whaterver the next craze is). The real problem with Gluten is that it gives marketers a new demon to sell to people with fewer than 2 brain cells. After all the previous great satans of sugar, salt and fat just aren't shifting overpriced proucts any more.
There is no such thing as a "super-food" and arsenic, polonium and bleach are all gluten free. Never trust buzzwords.
And whilst we're on the subject, organic food is any food that contains organic molecules.
I guess there's a reason that 70% of the British public are in favour of nationalising the railways.
I doubt it's that high (prob numbers from the Guardian). However if the plan was to corpotise the rail network, I think it would be closer to 90%. Corportisation allows government ownership whilst freeing the organisation from govt bureaucracy. Similar to what happens with the BBC, government acts as a shareholder, they can choose who is in charge but gets little say in how the business can run. Its the best of both worlds, private sector efficiency without the requirements to increase profit year on year.
Expect the 'Yet more big brother' articles from UK to ramp up a few notches after the Brexit, when they will be the law unto themselves to "protect against terrorists". We had a quiet few years after the last labour government finished
Its not the big brother articles that concern me post brexit. Most Britons will be far more concerned with simply having enough money to put food on the table.
The pound crashed by 10% overnight after the poll and hasn't even looked like it might be considering even possibly entertaining the idea of potentially thinking about recovery in the last six months. So its fair to say it's going to be down for the long term... and nothing has even happened yet. This will get a lot worse when something does happen.
The math doesn't work. The worker with $0 income can't afford even a $0.01 burger. Unless you go to universal income, robots are part of the problem.
That's because your equation is missing something.
Its more profitable to have a few rich clients than many middle class ones.
So anyways, stop your fear mongering. Western cultures (where most of this is happening right now) arent going anywhere.
This, if your culture is so weak that it can be destroyed by a minority entering your nation, it deserves to be destroyed.
Western (read: English, American, Canadian, Australian, so on and so forth) isn't going to be destroyed by foreigners. The only ones powerful enough to destroy it are ourselves... and fear mongerers are the ones trying to do just that. To keep our culture alive and strong, we need to marginalise the racists and xenophobes who want to divide us and make us weak... That is what the racists are afraid of, not the destruction of western culture but their own decent into irrelevance.
So people with these devices get an advantage. So what?
Players with TVs that have low processing latency have an advantage.
Which is so minute that it is easily overcome by a modicum of skill.
Players with a fast and stable Internet connection have an advantage.
Which is so minute that it is easily overcome by a modicum of skill.
Players living closer to the hosting servers probably have an advantage.
Which is so minute that it is easily overcome by a modicum of skill.
Players jacked up on caffeine probably have an advantage.
Actually, excessive caffeine tends to make people jittery and irrational, so this is patently false.
There are many factors that can influence your success in a multiplayer FPS. Let's not pretend that forcing console players to use a first-party controller makes everything fair.
The thing is, the difference between the KB and mouse compared to a controller is so great that no amount of skill makes it a fair competition. Take one of the leading players, give them a console controller then let a mediocre player use a KB and Mouse, there is no doubt who will win.
You need to stop pretending that a console controller is in any way comparable to the KB and mouse.
Why complain about people handicapping themselves?
This,
You dumb down, not up.
The next presidential decrete sets the number of H1-B visas to be given out the next 4 years to 0, while congress gets to pass a law to end the H1-B visas completely.
The more batshit insane he gets, the closer to impeachment he becomes.
The republicans will happily throw him under the bus if he starts to make the republicans unpopular. I'm sure Mike Pence is going to be a very complicit puppet after Trump is impeached.
BTW, is "decrete" a portmanteau of decree and secrete... because that seems fitting.
"I support the ban - our safety comes ahead of their convenience"
But does it increase your safety. What about other countries, what about those that get through anyway, what about 9/11 terrorists, 15 where from Saudi Arabia, two where from the United Arab Emirates, and one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon.
This.
Two robberies occurred on Friday, one was reported on by every major outlet in the UK, the other I heard about through a specialist forum.
The major news item is that someone robbed a convenience store in France whilst wearing a burka. This got national attention despite not even being in the nation and the robber only got away with a few hundred Euro at best. However because the I word was used, this was clearly the crime of the century despite the fact it was just another petty robbery which at least 10 of which go unreported in the UK media per day.
Now the other robbery, that was small time. Only 3 million GBP of engines were stolen from the Jagual/Land Rover plant in Solihull. Nothing of note really. They only used white Scania trucks, not like they were wearing a burka or anything truly dangerous like that. I found out about this non-event through the Car Meme's facebook page which linked to PistonHeads thread that referenced the Birmingham mail. As this was nothing compared to the Burka Burglar, I didn't see a report of it anywhere else.
Mention the M or I words and people lose their shit, no matter how unlikely the risk is.
Some of the common issues include low sexual desire, difficulty meeting women, and performance issues.
I can see why difficulty meeting potential sexual partners would be a problem if you have significant sexual desire, and likewise with performance issues. But why would a lack of sexual desire be a problem? It seems like it should make life easier. Let the rabbits get on with the procreating while you do whatever it is you are interested in.
Overwork (read fatigue) leads to lowered libido in young adults (willing to bet old ones too). This is a common phenomena in modern Japan as not only work, but family pressures have made young people more and more insular. Often even if they have the drive, they just don't have the time with their work commitments.
Given that working in Silicon valley often means working long hours and even though the pay is good, the living costs are extreme. Its likely that the long hours are eliminating the drive and living costs are eliminating the means (dating in the western world is pretty expensive). Add to this that most nerds are introverts.
I believe people are becoming ruder because our sense of community is being eroded. There is no "us" anymore, no sense of belonging together (or belonging anywhere). This is the sad legacy of globalism.
I don't think society is getting ruder, in fact its the opposite.
Also I cant see the link to globalism. Sounds like you're trying to frame the argument to blame something completely unrelated.
I visited Croatia the other day. There was a display of photos somewhere, and the corresponding descriptions showed a great deal of nationalistic pride. It felt like a breath of fresh air: people actually proud of what they were, and what they did. For one moment I felt that sense of belonging somewhere - and I'm not even Croatian...
And here it is.
The problem about showing patriotism in many western nations is that certain people have relentlessly attempted to tie patriotism to nationalism. Sounds like they've been successful on you.
Nationalistic pride is a bad thing as that says your nation can do no wrong. It is the belief that you are innately superior because you were born on this side of the border.
Patriotic pride is not such a bad thing. It says you take pride in the accomplishments of your nation and your peers in the advancement of your nation.
A nationalist is incapable of seeing flaw in their nation, a Patriot not only acknowledges that their nation can be flawed, but works to fix them.
The problem here in England... in fact I'd say its the same problem in the US as well as Australia is that racist and xenophobic groups, such as the EDL in England have completely managed to co-opt the idea of patriotism to sell their own brand of hate. They've tied the idea of being a proud Englishman to their hate of foreigners and religions they don't like. I think this is a shame because there is a lot to be proud of in English culture, not the least of which is its openness and acceptance of others. However groups like the EDL or UKIP would have others believe you were one of them for being a proud Englishman or woman which as I said, is a bloody disgrace.
Being proud of where you came from (I'm an Australian who lives in England) is not about beating down others, sadly that is what passes for Nationalistic pride in the west these days.
Aggressive forum users are a sign of the failure of the moderators.
The specific behaviour the OP describes is more a sign of the type of forum they're participating in, it's, unfortunately, fairly common behaviour among geek/techie personalities. Go to a forum dealing with, say, gardening or pets or childcare and you'll very rarely see this sort of thing, the standard response there is sympathy and advice. So the best advice perhaps is to hold your nose and ignore the crap, or try posting to several different technical forums in the hope that you'll get good advice from at least one of them.
Moderation, I agree, is one way of dealing with this, e.g. Stackexchange does a pretty good job of keeping things on-topic, but sometimes you just have to mentally lint-filter the crap in the hope of finding the nuggets of good advice.
I'm present on quite a few forums outside of IT, mostly travel and motoring. Aggressive behaviour, which on forums is mostly passive aggressive behaviour, is definitely not limited to technical forums. Any type of forum, if poorly moderated will devolve into a shit slinging competition simply because some people can get away with it. Parents forums have been amongst the most vicious I've seen unless they are strictly moderated (try telling a parent they're raising a bad kid... their response gets worse the more true it is).
Moderation is a tricky thing to get right, under-moderating will result in forums being ruled by trolls. Over-moderation will result in good users being afraid to post. Biased moderation will result in a stagnant user base because people who dont like an echo chamber will go elsewhere. Slashdot manages to do all of these things, but none of them particularly well so failure it tends to balance everything out.
Conflict and disagreement is inevitable in any forum, online or otherwise. That is not automatically a bad thing. Disagreement and conflict handled properly can be constructive as it improves and strengthens ideas. Whether it's constructive or destructive depends on the skill of the moderators. A good mod will allow some conflict and disagreement but, like a well trained butler, knows when it's time to step in and control the situation. Its inevitable that some debates become heated, even a good and constructive member can fly off the handle and it is not always the fault of another user, even if they did set them off, good mods control these situations just before they get out of hand.