Yet more advocacy for government intervention? I work in the U.S. and enjoy 28 paid days off per year. That's well over a month when you count weekends, and doesn't count holidays. Some of the people where I work (television) have 24/7 schedules - meaning they don't get holidays (because we're still broadcasting), so they get like 35 PTO days. No government intervention required. Competition is good - both for employees and the company.
At the same time, some small start up isn't going to have the resources to give people that much time off; they need the opportunity to grow into a larger company that can. What that typically means for employees is they get to be in on the ground floor of an emerging company, and if it works then they will be the executives of the larger company in the future - for that possibility they are trading benefits for those ground floor opportunities. The free-er the free market is, the better it has been for employees and consumers - the only government intervention required is to keep it free (fighting price fixing and collusion). As Milton Friedman put it - no other system yet tried has ever done more for the common man than the free market. It's not perfect - but nothing else has ever had the track record of raising the levels of the average person than free market capitalism.
Of course - whether or not you realize it. You see the way they're dressed, the way they wear their hair, you notice their demeanor and attitudes towards others. White or black or Asian or otherwise, you notice that someone's wearing their pants around their asses and sporting a gold "grill," you notice the burka or yamulcha or skull cap, the people they're with and what they are doing, their tattoos and piercings, and you're judging them the whole time. Not just negative judgements, but positive and neutral judgements - you're assessing what you see, and that's just human nature (and it's good human nature, even if it's wrong every once in a while). White or black or Asian or otherwise, you think differently about someone with their pants around their asses and someone wearing a nice suit or dress. And it's not just OK to judge people that way, it's right to judge people that way, because these are the things that they have control over, unlike their race. And judging isn't "wrong," either, you judge everything every day, because you can have positive reactions, too - and would you call them wrong, also?
You missed a step: we shouldn't fire people for their political beliefs, we should fire people for advocating hatred and violence, which is what we can say about anybody who doesn't agree with my political beliefs.
I dislike Trump almost as much as I dislike the Clintons. I find it amusing this year that both sides say a vote for Johnson is a vote for the other candidate. (Johnson is also not qualified, but since he stands no chance of winning, it's a vote for a philosophy for me)
However, from this vantage point, liberals/democrats look downright crazy...
"We agree that people shouldn't be fired for their political views, but this isn't a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence," she wrote. "Giving more power to someone whose ascension and behavior strike fear into so many people is unacceptable. His attacks on black, Mexican, Asian, Muslim, and Jewish people, on women, and on others are more than just political speech; fueled by hate and encouraging violence, they make each of us feel unsafe."
Anybody afraid of Trump is moron. Yes, he's sexist, he's racist, and he's just a complete jerk - but he hasn't "attacked" anyone, or threatened to implement any policies that should make anybody feel "threatened." He's not fueled by hate, he's fueled by greed and a sense of self grandeur, and when has he ever encouraged violence? Just so much hyperbole in one sentence, and the sad part is people believe it - the tolerant liberals once again showing their intolerance for anyone that doesn't fall in line with their ideology. I don't find it ironic that, with the exception of the religious fundamentalists perhaps, conservatives are a lot more open minded and accepting that people have different philosophies than liberals.... and I'm neither, which is why it might be so obvious to me, and so hard for either side to see how hypocritical and moronic they are so often being.
And since when has anybody actually been "all in" on a candidate anyway? I don't know ANYONE that exhibits any signs of rational thought that thinks that either of the main party candidates are a great choice - more than ever before, this is a "lesser of two evils" election. But the lesser of two evils is still evil (so keep making fun of third party votes while you vote "evil"). For the vast majority of supporters, a vote for Trump is not a vote for sexism or racism, it's a vote for a small number of policy changes people might like to see, and mainly a vote against Hillary - the same way a vote for Hillary is a vote for a small number of policies she supports and mainly a vote against Trump.
I agree with you in principle - less government intervention actually generally works out better for consumers. But while I'm definitely a capitalist at heart, and truly believe in the free market, I also believe the problems in the free market revolve around companies trying to make the free market not so free. So if the government steps in and doesn't dictate what movies Netflix can carry - but instead has policies and policing to actually keep the free market free from price fixing and collusion, then I'm all for it. After that, then the free market decides for itself what movies Netflix will choose to license, and then we can choose which services we want. I love the free market paradigm, but the "evils" of capitalism (like collusion) work against the free market, not for it.
That's great if you like shows based on comics book heroes - while I will watch the occasional Marvel movie, I'm not invested enough to care about ongoing series. House of Cards and Orange is the New Black are not really my style. Narcos is quite good... My personal tastes aside, is what they are offering enough to justify the monthly fee. If you only like two or three of their shows, then it's more worthwhile to sign up for a couple of months and binge watch, then cancel because, as far as I recall, they don't require a long term subscription. As someone who cord cut a couple of months ago, I'm finding myself actually not very happy - even paying for commercial free Hulu. I've resolved to completely wait out seasons and watch them when they become available instead of watching on-demand from the network websites - I think there might be even more commercials than usual in some instances.
Back on topic, I don't care how many top-250 movies they have - there are a lot of great movies that aren't in the top 250 (but maybe the top 1000, for example). What I want, and what I think a lot of people want, is newer releases. I like their original content, but I signed up for Netflix for movies.
While we find some content perusing the older movies on IMDB, I'd prefer to see more recent movies - not necessarily top 250. Shawshank and the Godfather are awesome movies, no doubt - I've seen each one at least 10 times. I want Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu (which does carry movies, too) to get some more recent movies that I haven't seen in theaters because I don't go that often.
I've only recently begun to watch their originals, and while they're quite good, what I really want in Netflix is catching the movies I was interested but didn't catch in the theaters. Between Hulu, Amazon Prime, and Netflix, you get maybe 3 recent popular movies a year that I haven't seen in theaters, and they aren't the blockbusters. I want these services, in part, because I don't want to see things in theaters anymore, and I don't pirate content. It's still more worthwhile to pay the Amazon rental fee for a decent recent movie every once in a while.
The point isn't that people aren't stupid for leaving their door unlocked, it's that the world is a shit hole because of the criminals, not the victims. The blame should always go first to the ones violating the rights of others, and lesson learned for the victims who made it easy.
Until you change the law, IP theft is theft. I'm pretty sure if you tried to capitalize on a great idea you had, you'd be pissed if someone came along and stole it, and then claimed they did you no harm.
But the blame still falls on the perpetrator, not the victim. If assholes didn't exist, people wouldn't have to be so cynical. The fault in that lies with the assholes.
People should definitely know better, but stop blaming the victims. Just because I don't lock my front door, nobody has the right to walk in and steal my stuff.
And I have dogs. The robot doesn't poop, doesn't need expensive food (one of my dogs has food allergies), doesn't cough of hairballs or vomit on the carpet after eating god-knows-what outside, doesn't stink up the house, and if it breaks, you can just turn it off until it's convenient to get repaired; you don't need to find a sitter or pet hotel when you go on vacation (costing a lot of money). My dogs also look at me weird when I try to talk to them, and sometimes they talk back... but I usually don't have a clue wtf they want. They also can't answer questions - I'd be willing to be you can ask these robots what time it is, what the weather is like, maybe even math or spelling questions. Don't get me wrong, I love my dogs, and I doubt a robot would be able to replace their unique personalities. I will keep my dogs (for now), but I think something like this can have a lot of appeal - especially older or infirmed people who cannot take care of an actual living creature, or students or people who keep hours that are too terrible to consistently take care of a pet.
Whenever our power goes out, my wife and kids and I get together and actually spend quality time together - playing board games or something and just talking. It's sad that it takes a power outage for that. When you suggest it at other times, and the kids can be playing games or watching stuff online, they decline, but I do try. My favorite is hiking together... good long time, a lot of good conversation... and a lot of "no" when I ask the kids (and even the wife). It's depressing.
... Better let an application generate password for user's eyes only and force user to memorize it (or to write it down, at their own risk).
Let's see... my work account, two banks, several credit cards, two healthcare accounts (FSA AND HSA) as well as my health insurance, accounts for my kids in school (like paying for school lunches), ISP account, several streaming services, slashdot, reddit, and a number of other forums I participate in (and not me, but most people will have several social media accounts).... you get the idea. I'm supposed to remember all those completely random passwords?
Oh, and another pet peeve: changing passwords often - it does nothing for password guessing, all passwords with same randomness have same probability of being guessed. Changing passwords are meaningful only if old password is already compromised, but you never know when it exactly happened, so unless you are changing password after each session, it is almost completely useless.
Now that I can agree on - our company's policy is just damn annoying and often screws up our production work.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet more advocacy for government intervention? I work in the U.S. and enjoy 28 paid days off per year. That's well over a month when you count weekends, and doesn't count holidays. Some of the people where I work (television) have 24/7 schedules - meaning they don't get holidays (because we're still broadcasting), so they get like 35 PTO days. No government intervention required. Competition is good - both for employees and the company.
At the same time, some small start up isn't going to have the resources to give people that much time off; they need the opportunity to grow into a larger company that can. What that typically means for employees is they get to be in on the ground floor of an emerging company, and if it works then they will be the executives of the larger company in the future - for that possibility they are trading benefits for those ground floor opportunities. The free-er the free market is, the better it has been for employees and consumers - the only government intervention required is to keep it free (fighting price fixing and collusion). As Milton Friedman put it - no other system yet tried has ever done more for the common man than the free market. It's not perfect - but nothing else has ever had the track record of raising the levels of the average person than free market capitalism.
For the vast majority of supporters, a vote for Trump is not a vote for sexism or racism
Of course, it isn't, but that's because they can't reconcile the idea that they're good people and still voting for an evil monster.
Right... the exact same thing Hillary voters are doing. Your confirmation bias is showing.
Of course - whether or not you realize it. You see the way they're dressed, the way they wear their hair, you notice their demeanor and attitudes towards others. White or black or Asian or otherwise, you notice that someone's wearing their pants around their asses and sporting a gold "grill," you notice the burka or yamulcha or skull cap, the people they're with and what they are doing, their tattoos and piercings, and you're judging them the whole time. Not just negative judgements, but positive and neutral judgements - you're assessing what you see, and that's just human nature (and it's good human nature, even if it's wrong every once in a while). White or black or Asian or otherwise, you think differently about someone with their pants around their asses and someone wearing a nice suit or dress. And it's not just OK to judge people that way, it's right to judge people that way, because these are the things that they have control over, unlike their race. And judging isn't "wrong," either, you judge everything every day, because you can have positive reactions, too - and would you call them wrong, also?
And frankly, what gets labeled racist is almost never tied to race, but culture.
Except that Mexican isn't a race. Unless you think like La Raza, that is.
You missed a step: we shouldn't fire people for their political beliefs, we should fire people for advocating hatred and violence, which is what we can say about anybody who doesn't agree with my political beliefs.
They're all code words - didn't you get the code-word memo? Banker = Jews, Immigrant = Mexican, State Rights = Racist.
And the conclusion is... both sides have douchebag supporters, but neither side admits their side is bad due to confirmation bias.
I dislike Trump almost as much as I dislike the Clintons. I find it amusing this year that both sides say a vote for Johnson is a vote for the other candidate. (Johnson is also not qualified, but since he stands no chance of winning, it's a vote for a philosophy for me)
However, from this vantage point, liberals/democrats look downright crazy...
Anybody afraid of Trump is moron. Yes, he's sexist, he's racist, and he's just a complete jerk - but he hasn't "attacked" anyone, or threatened to implement any policies that should make anybody feel "threatened." He's not fueled by hate, he's fueled by greed and a sense of self grandeur, and when has he ever encouraged violence? Just so much hyperbole in one sentence, and the sad part is people believe it - the tolerant liberals once again showing their intolerance for anyone that doesn't fall in line with their ideology. I don't find it ironic that, with the exception of the religious fundamentalists perhaps, conservatives are a lot more open minded and accepting that people have different philosophies than liberals.... and I'm neither, which is why it might be so obvious to me, and so hard for either side to see how hypocritical and moronic they are so often being.
And since when has anybody actually been "all in" on a candidate anyway? I don't know ANYONE that exhibits any signs of rational thought that thinks that either of the main party candidates are a great choice - more than ever before, this is a "lesser of two evils" election. But the lesser of two evils is still evil (so keep making fun of third party votes while you vote "evil"). For the vast majority of supporters, a vote for Trump is not a vote for sexism or racism, it's a vote for a small number of policy changes people might like to see, and mainly a vote against Hillary - the same way a vote for Hillary is a vote for a small number of policies she supports and mainly a vote against Trump.
I agree with you in principle - less government intervention actually generally works out better for consumers. But while I'm definitely a capitalist at heart, and truly believe in the free market, I also believe the problems in the free market revolve around companies trying to make the free market not so free. So if the government steps in and doesn't dictate what movies Netflix can carry - but instead has policies and policing to actually keep the free market free from price fixing and collusion, then I'm all for it. After that, then the free market decides for itself what movies Netflix will choose to license, and then we can choose which services we want. I love the free market paradigm, but the "evils" of capitalism (like collusion) work against the free market, not for it.
That's great if you like shows based on comics book heroes - while I will watch the occasional Marvel movie, I'm not invested enough to care about ongoing series. House of Cards and Orange is the New Black are not really my style. Narcos is quite good... My personal tastes aside, is what they are offering enough to justify the monthly fee. If you only like two or three of their shows, then it's more worthwhile to sign up for a couple of months and binge watch, then cancel because, as far as I recall, they don't require a long term subscription. As someone who cord cut a couple of months ago, I'm finding myself actually not very happy - even paying for commercial free Hulu. I've resolved to completely wait out seasons and watch them when they become available instead of watching on-demand from the network websites - I think there might be even more commercials than usual in some instances.
Back on topic, I don't care how many top-250 movies they have - there are a lot of great movies that aren't in the top 250 (but maybe the top 1000, for example). What I want, and what I think a lot of people want, is newer releases. I like their original content, but I signed up for Netflix for movies.
While we find some content perusing the older movies on IMDB, I'd prefer to see more recent movies - not necessarily top 250. Shawshank and the Godfather are awesome movies, no doubt - I've seen each one at least 10 times. I want Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu (which does carry movies, too) to get some more recent movies that I haven't seen in theaters because I don't go that often.
I've only recently begun to watch their originals, and while they're quite good, what I really want in Netflix is catching the movies I was interested but didn't catch in the theaters. Between Hulu, Amazon Prime, and Netflix, you get maybe 3 recent popular movies a year that I haven't seen in theaters, and they aren't the blockbusters. I want these services, in part, because I don't want to see things in theaters anymore, and I don't pirate content. It's still more worthwhile to pay the Amazon rental fee for a decent recent movie every once in a while.
These are relatively recent... one of the ones I looked at was released August 2016; the next one I looked at was October 2015, June 2015....
The point isn't that people aren't stupid for leaving their door unlocked, it's that the world is a shit hole because of the criminals, not the victims. The blame should always go first to the ones violating the rights of others, and lesson learned for the victims who made it easy.
Now you're just nit-picking. If you prefer, then, it's OK to commit copyright infringement when you deem something not worthy. Better?
Until you change the law, IP theft is theft. I'm pretty sure if you tried to capitalize on a great idea you had, you'd be pissed if someone came along and stole it, and then claimed they did you no harm.
(Well I might grab a torrent once the DVD is released).
Yup. Anything deemed not worth paying for is stuff you're allowed to steal. It's right there in the constitution.
But the blame still falls on the perpetrator, not the victim. If assholes didn't exist, people wouldn't have to be so cynical. The fault in that lies with the assholes.
People should definitely know better, but stop blaming the victims. Just because I don't lock my front door, nobody has the right to walk in and steal my stuff.
And I have dogs. The robot doesn't poop, doesn't need expensive food (one of my dogs has food allergies), doesn't cough of hairballs or vomit on the carpet after eating god-knows-what outside, doesn't stink up the house, and if it breaks, you can just turn it off until it's convenient to get repaired; you don't need to find a sitter or pet hotel when you go on vacation (costing a lot of money). My dogs also look at me weird when I try to talk to them, and sometimes they talk back... but I usually don't have a clue wtf they want. They also can't answer questions - I'd be willing to be you can ask these robots what time it is, what the weather is like, maybe even math or spelling questions. Don't get me wrong, I love my dogs, and I doubt a robot would be able to replace their unique personalities. I will keep my dogs (for now), but I think something like this can have a lot of appeal - especially older or infirmed people who cannot take care of an actual living creature, or students or people who keep hours that are too terrible to consistently take care of a pet.
My wife is hardly a techie, so I don't understand why both parties need to be techies. Or even one.
Whenever our power goes out, my wife and kids and I get together and actually spend quality time together - playing board games or something and just talking. It's sad that it takes a power outage for that. When you suggest it at other times, and the kids can be playing games or watching stuff online, they decline, but I do try. My favorite is hiking together... good long time, a lot of good conversation... and a lot of "no" when I ask the kids (and even the wife). It's depressing.
It's 9 characters and not numeric only.... you forget the dashes. Not that it's a great password, just saying...
... Better let an application generate password for user's eyes only and force user to memorize it (or to write it down, at their own risk).
Let's see... my work account, two banks, several credit cards, two healthcare accounts (FSA AND HSA) as well as my health insurance, accounts for my kids in school (like paying for school lunches), ISP account, several streaming services, slashdot, reddit, and a number of other forums I participate in (and not me, but most people will have several social media accounts).... you get the idea. I'm supposed to remember all those completely random passwords?
Oh, and another pet peeve: changing passwords often - it does nothing for password guessing, all passwords with same randomness have same probability of being guessed. Changing passwords are meaningful only if old password is already compromised, but you never know when it exactly happened, so unless you are changing password after each session, it is almost completely useless.
Now that I can agree on - our company's policy is just damn annoying and often screws up our production work.