That's just the price they pay for wanting to live in the northern quarter of the planet I suppose, where daylight might be less than 9 hours. I'm sure they'll figure it out without expecting the rest of the country to change their clocks. If they refuse to change their perceptions then I guess they're setting themselves up for an irritating life for no good reason. That, too, is not my problem.
So if a business is open for 12 hours a day, and they have their lights on while they're open, and turn the lights off a certain amount of time after they close, you're suggesting that power consumption for those lights changes based on things like the time of the year or the time of day? At what time of day does a light bulb that is turned on use the least amount of electricity?
they aren't the ones who chose to suddenly have to now always do their entire commute before dawn
If they decide to open their businesses before sunrise then they most certainly are the ones choosing that. I don't understand the confusion. It's not like there's a federal law which states that any public business needs to be open no later than 8am or whatever. Open when the sun is out if that's important to you, regardless of whatever the clock says.
There are places in the US, like Seattle, which experience fewer than 9 hours of sunlight in a day in the winter. If they want to be open for 10 hours a day, is it possible to do that in a way where both commutes are during the light? Of course not, absolutely no amount of fucking with a clock is going to give you more than 9 hours of sunlight in one day. But people make the choice to live there, so they're choosing to deal with that. They understand the sun is going to set before 5pm and not come up again until 8am. It's just a fact of life, and I'm not going to change my clock in Arizona because people move up there and realize that the days are much shorter.
It does not matter at all if it's always standard time or always DST or whatever. REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE DAMN CLOCK SAYS, open your business at a time that you want to open and close it whenever you want to. It does not matter what time the clock says when you do these things. That is not important. If people need to get used to the fact that school starts at 10am, they'll get used to it. It's not a big fucking deal and I have no idea why people are using so many words to talk about this issue. It doesn't deserve it. It's a really really simple issue. People need to quit thinking that all businesses need to be open at 8am or some arbitrary time on the clock. They don't.
You really don't understand that pointing out the endless parade of left-leaning media outlets that engage in nothing but non-stop virtue signaling and receive praise from their audiences for it... is important in the context of a very left-leaning publication complaining about that sort of thing?
That's a nice anecdote, but that's not what TFA is about. Did you even read it? These are a series of websites set up to look like "local news" even though they aren't. They share content, syndicate other content, etc. One of them even had the weather for the wrong state because they forgot to change that when setting up the new site. The few people running these "local news" sites are conservative activists, people involved with political campaigns, PACs, etc. They run stories promoting their candidates or causes, deriding their opponents, etc. They do not disclose that they have any connection with the people they are writing about, they do not disclose the obvious conflicts of interest. They make the stories appear like a journalism story without stating the political nature of the story and its authors, that it is nothing more than a political ad wrapped up as "news." The reason they do this is because of polls showing that people find local news to be more reliable and trustworthy. So they create "local news" sites in battleground states - where they are not themselves based - and try to pawn off their political ads as local news stories to take advantage of that local trust.
This is fundamentally different from a publication whose staff generally leans one way or the other. If you're not seeing why that's worth noting, then you're the person they're trying to fool. And you're defending them for it.
"The day" isn't some arbitrary number on a clock, it's the 12 or so hours centered around when the sun is at its peak. When you understand this then I'll explain "the night," that will REALLY blow your mind!
Entire countries needing to use more electric because their "business hours" are when the sun isn't around?
Why the fuck would a business catering to the public decide to open its doors when everyone is sleeping? "BUT the sign on the door says we have to be open from 9am to 5pm (whatever "pm" is supposed to be!), and there's no timezone listed on the sign so we HAVE to be open from 9 GMT to 17 GMT! We have no choice! The sign dictates it!"
Businesses that literally depend on Sunlight (or lack thereof)?
Here's a crazy motherfucking idea, and I'm going to go quick so try to stick with me: if your business depends on the sun being out, then be open when it's out. If it depends on the sun being down, then be open when it's down. I hope I didn't move too quickly.
So you propose what exactly? Everyone's business hours are that of 9-5 UTC? I'm sure people in the west coast would love starting their day at the equivalent of 2AM.
Why is that so confusing and scary for you?
Our office is open from 15 GMT to 0 GMT. I wake up around 13 GMT and go to bed around 5 GMT. If I moved across the country, all that would change.
OOOOOh, scary!
It would sure make scheduling things across countries easier, wouldn't it? Of course, if you only do business and interact with people within a 100-mile radius of where you were born, maybe you wouldn't enjoy it as much. Then again, it would be the only system you ever knew and ever had to learn.
That's interesting that a country that large and populous can operate on one time zone. Different regions wake up and sleep at different times and no one changes their clocks. Makes sense.
At some point people need to realize that they've chosen to live in a place where the sun rises late in the winter, and become OK with that fact. Adapt to it. Move work hours back or whatever you need to do, maybe just come to terms with the realities of living in the northern quarter of the planet. What's stupid is expecting a bunch of other people to change their clocks twice a year.
In the northern tiers of states (where the length of the day changes the most), children were going to school in the dark while sleepy drivers were commuting.
I'm going to say something fucking crazy, just balls-out nuts, but stick with me:
How about starting school later instead of trying to convince everyone that it's suddenly a different time now? How about making it so that children going to school and morning rush hour traffic are not the same time?
Fucking nuts, I know. But we really need to think of the children.
The winter time is when we need extra light hours in the evening because winter road conditions and it being dark outside can lead to more vehicle accidents.
OK, then set that as the standard time. It still doesn't sound necessary to change clocks twice a year.
Of course not, if Democrats did something similar they should be called out too. This has less to do with the political party at fault and more to do with the fact it's happening at all. So, if you've got any examples of stuff like what's listed in the article, feel free to call them out.
Even GTA seems like an improvement though, even though it's older. I haven't played RDR because it's not available for my platform, but I felt the same way with the Mad Max game a few years back. It started out fun but eventually it became clear that it was just a grind across a large map. Kind of the same with the recent LOTR games. I think that what separates those from GTA is that, with all of the games you might have a certain objective to get to across the map. With LOTR or Max Max or (presumably) RDR, you're taking your one form of transportation in a more or less shortest path to get there, and once you do get there you're doing something that you've done a dozen times before. With GTA, you might have a certain waypoint across the map but you can get there as chaotically as your heart desires. Everything on the small scale is random enough (traffic, etc) that it doesn't necessarily feel like you've done this same exact thing dozens of times before.
I do not plan to see the movie. In fact, I know I'm not going to, there's no reason for me to. So I would indicate on their site that I'm not going to do it. I have no idea about the characters or plot or anything else, I'm just sick of comic book movies that require impossible things and extensive CGI in order to make sense. I don't give a shit whose hands are glowing this time and what shiny thing they're looking for and which costume can violate the laws of thermodynamics to suddenly appear. But if I make that selection, you're going to connect my vote with some discussion on some other site and try to say that my vote doesn't matter because these other people have their own grievances about the movie and that this film is, in fact, universally loved and everyone who says otherwise was probably paid to vote that way?
Come on, no one else is falling for it.
A lot of people don't like comic book movies because it's the current lazy-as-shit way to get a bunch of people to pay money to watch special effects for an hour and a half. We deserve better. There are plenty of compelling stories out there.
You can express all of that on the Rotten Tomatoes website when you indicate whether or not you plan to see the movie? It's not just a selection of "I plan to see it" or "I don't plan to see it?"
Again, maybe it's a group of people tired of comic book movies trying to make their voice heard. I guarantee there are a lot of us out there.
Why would someone who wants to see the movie go to some site to say they actually don't? What do they get out of that? I'm sure they actually don't want to see the movie, that sounds reasonable.
Why are you assuming this is necessarily being gamed? Why can't it be accurate? Maybe people are finally realizing that there are plenty of compelling stories which could be set in reality which deserve to be told instead of the 37th installment of People With Superpowers In CGI(tm).
It is simply illegal for people to create content intended to be masturbated to where the star(s) are girls under age.
No, that's not illegal. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor. If someone masturbates to kids playing on a playground, and that person creates an animation of kids playing on a playground, that's not illegal. Similarly, a parent's pictures of their naked children may not constitute child pornography as long as the pictures are not sexually suggestive. A 15 year old girl uploading a video of her showing off her cleavage, while otherwise clothed, is not illegal.
If you don't think that any of these YT videos are this, than you have your head in the sand.
Hmm, are you trying to suggest that sex sells? That's amazing, we need to alert everyone.
Seriously, this is absurd. Literally the only difference in "proper" or "improper" use is the intent of the person watching it, and now they want to try to regulate intent? The content itself is not the problem, it's the intent of the viewer that's the problem, so why do people think they can A) determine and B) regulate that intent?
I'm really wondering how they think it's even technically possible. You have a piece of software, that for some reason people can't uninstall, but at the same time it has to be removable if someone pays a fee. So, if this is going to work on every device, and you're going to remove it without destroying the device, then presumably you're just running some program to remove it. So, why can't anyone else remove it? The geniuses in the Kansas legislature have figured out something that I'm not able to see. Surely they're not just writing a pie-in-the-sky bill and expecting "industry" to provide a solution for a problem that they just created.
Slashdot Mirror
That's another good option.
That's just the price they pay for wanting to live in the northern quarter of the planet I suppose, where daylight might be less than 9 hours. I'm sure they'll figure it out without expecting the rest of the country to change their clocks. If they refuse to change their perceptions then I guess they're setting themselves up for an irritating life for no good reason. That, too, is not my problem.
So if a business is open for 12 hours a day, and they have their lights on while they're open, and turn the lights off a certain amount of time after they close, you're suggesting that power consumption for those lights changes based on things like the time of the year or the time of day? At what time of day does a light bulb that is turned on use the least amount of electricity?
they aren't the ones who chose to suddenly have to now always do their entire commute before dawn
If they decide to open their businesses before sunrise then they most certainly are the ones choosing that. I don't understand the confusion. It's not like there's a federal law which states that any public business needs to be open no later than 8am or whatever. Open when the sun is out if that's important to you, regardless of whatever the clock says.
There are places in the US, like Seattle, which experience fewer than 9 hours of sunlight in a day in the winter. If they want to be open for 10 hours a day, is it possible to do that in a way where both commutes are during the light? Of course not, absolutely no amount of fucking with a clock is going to give you more than 9 hours of sunlight in one day. But people make the choice to live there, so they're choosing to deal with that. They understand the sun is going to set before 5pm and not come up again until 8am. It's just a fact of life, and I'm not going to change my clock in Arizona because people move up there and realize that the days are much shorter.
It does not matter at all if it's always standard time or always DST or whatever. REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE DAMN CLOCK SAYS, open your business at a time that you want to open and close it whenever you want to. It does not matter what time the clock says when you do these things. That is not important. If people need to get used to the fact that school starts at 10am, they'll get used to it. It's not a big fucking deal and I have no idea why people are using so many words to talk about this issue. It doesn't deserve it. It's a really really simple issue. People need to quit thinking that all businesses need to be open at 8am or some arbitrary time on the clock. They don't.
You really don't understand that pointing out the endless parade of left-leaning media outlets that engage in nothing but non-stop virtue signaling and receive praise from their audiences for it ... is important in the context of a very left-leaning publication complaining about that sort of thing?
That's a nice anecdote, but that's not what TFA is about. Did you even read it? These are a series of websites set up to look like "local news" even though they aren't. They share content, syndicate other content, etc. One of them even had the weather for the wrong state because they forgot to change that when setting up the new site. The few people running these "local news" sites are conservative activists, people involved with political campaigns, PACs, etc. They run stories promoting their candidates or causes, deriding their opponents, etc. They do not disclose that they have any connection with the people they are writing about, they do not disclose the obvious conflicts of interest. They make the stories appear like a journalism story without stating the political nature of the story and its authors, that it is nothing more than a political ad wrapped up as "news." The reason they do this is because of polls showing that people find local news to be more reliable and trustworthy. So they create "local news" sites in battleground states - where they are not themselves based - and try to pawn off their political ads as local news stories to take advantage of that local trust.
This is fundamentally different from a publication whose staff generally leans one way or the other. If you're not seeing why that's worth noting, then you're the person they're trying to fool. And you're defending them for it.
Everyone just sleeps during the day?
You're pretty confused, aren't you?
"The day" isn't some arbitrary number on a clock, it's the 12 or so hours centered around when the sun is at its peak. When you understand this then I'll explain "the night," that will REALLY blow your mind!
Entire countries needing to use more electric because their "business hours" are when the sun isn't around?
Why the fuck would a business catering to the public decide to open its doors when everyone is sleeping? "BUT the sign on the door says we have to be open from 9am to 5pm (whatever "pm" is supposed to be!), and there's no timezone listed on the sign so we HAVE to be open from 9 GMT to 17 GMT! We have no choice! The sign dictates it!"
Businesses that literally depend on Sunlight (or lack thereof)?
Here's a crazy motherfucking idea, and I'm going to go quick so try to stick with me: if your business depends on the sun being out, then be open when it's out. If it depends on the sun being down, then be open when it's down. I hope I didn't move too quickly.
So you propose what exactly? Everyone's business hours are that of 9-5 UTC? I'm sure people in the west coast would love starting their day at the equivalent of 2AM.
Why is that so confusing and scary for you?
Our office is open from 15 GMT to 0 GMT. I wake up around 13 GMT and go to bed around 5 GMT. If I moved across the country, all that would change.
OOOOOh, scary!
It would sure make scheduling things across countries easier, wouldn't it? Of course, if you only do business and interact with people within a 100-mile radius of where you were born, maybe you wouldn't enjoy it as much. Then again, it would be the only system you ever knew and ever had to learn.
That's interesting that a country that large and populous can operate on one time zone. Different regions wake up and sleep at different times and no one changes their clocks. Makes sense.
At some point people need to realize that they've chosen to live in a place where the sun rises late in the winter, and become OK with that fact. Adapt to it. Move work hours back or whatever you need to do, maybe just come to terms with the realities of living in the northern quarter of the planet. What's stupid is expecting a bunch of other people to change their clocks twice a year.
In the northern tiers of states (where the length of the day changes the most), children were going to school in the dark while sleepy drivers were commuting.
I'm going to say something fucking crazy, just balls-out nuts, but stick with me:
How about starting school later instead of trying to convince everyone that it's suddenly a different time now? How about making it so that children going to school and morning rush hour traffic are not the same time?
Fucking nuts, I know. But we really need to think of the children.
Indiana is a great example of what not to do for time zones.
The winter time is when we need extra light hours in the evening because winter road conditions and it being dark outside can lead to more vehicle accidents.
OK, then set that as the standard time. It still doesn't sound necessary to change clocks twice a year.
No, the idea was to save electricity, as in switching on lights later etc.
What? There are people who turn on or off lights based on a clock instead of the actual level of light available?
It seems kind of ironic that your comment, which doesn't contain any actual insight, jumped up to +5. Talking about signaling.
Of course not, if Democrats did something similar they should be called out too. This has less to do with the political party at fault and more to do with the fact it's happening at all. So, if you've got any examples of stuff like what's listed in the article, feel free to call them out.
Even GTA seems like an improvement though, even though it's older. I haven't played RDR because it's not available for my platform, but I felt the same way with the Mad Max game a few years back. It started out fun but eventually it became clear that it was just a grind across a large map. Kind of the same with the recent LOTR games. I think that what separates those from GTA is that, with all of the games you might have a certain objective to get to across the map. With LOTR or Max Max or (presumably) RDR, you're taking your one form of transportation in a more or less shortest path to get there, and once you do get there you're doing something that you've done a dozen times before. With GTA, you might have a certain waypoint across the map but you can get there as chaotically as your heart desires. Everything on the small scale is random enough (traffic, etc) that it doesn't necessarily feel like you've done this same exact thing dozens of times before.
I do not plan to see the movie. In fact, I know I'm not going to, there's no reason for me to. So I would indicate on their site that I'm not going to do it. I have no idea about the characters or plot or anything else, I'm just sick of comic book movies that require impossible things and extensive CGI in order to make sense. I don't give a shit whose hands are glowing this time and what shiny thing they're looking for and which costume can violate the laws of thermodynamics to suddenly appear. But if I make that selection, you're going to connect my vote with some discussion on some other site and try to say that my vote doesn't matter because these other people have their own grievances about the movie and that this film is, in fact, universally loved and everyone who says otherwise was probably paid to vote that way?
Come on, no one else is falling for it.
A lot of people don't like comic book movies because it's the current lazy-as-shit way to get a bunch of people to pay money to watch special effects for an hour and a half. We deserve better. There are plenty of compelling stories out there.
You can express all of that on the Rotten Tomatoes website when you indicate whether or not you plan to see the movie? It's not just a selection of "I plan to see it" or "I don't plan to see it?"
Again, maybe it's a group of people tired of comic book movies trying to make their voice heard. I guarantee there are a lot of us out there.
Why would someone who wants to see the movie go to some site to say they actually don't? What do they get out of that? I'm sure they actually don't want to see the movie, that sounds reasonable.
Why are you assuming this is necessarily being gamed? Why can't it be accurate? Maybe people are finally realizing that there are plenty of compelling stories which could be set in reality which deserve to be told instead of the 37th installment of People With Superpowers In CGI(tm).
It is simply illegal for people to create content intended to be masturbated to where the star(s) are girls under age.
No, that's not illegal. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor. If someone masturbates to kids playing on a playground, and that person creates an animation of kids playing on a playground, that's not illegal. Similarly, a parent's pictures of their naked children may not constitute child pornography as long as the pictures are not sexually suggestive. A 15 year old girl uploading a video of her showing off her cleavage, while otherwise clothed, is not illegal.
If you don't think that any of these YT videos are this, than you have your head in the sand.
Hmm, are you trying to suggest that sex sells? That's amazing, we need to alert everyone.
Why does it matter? Serious question.
In addition to dictating what people are allowed to watch, are you suggesting also trying to dictate why they should be watching it?
Seriously, this is absurd. Literally the only difference in "proper" or "improper" use is the intent of the person watching it, and now they want to try to regulate intent? The content itself is not the problem, it's the intent of the viewer that's the problem, so why do people think they can A) determine and B) regulate that intent?
WTF?
A 16 year old girl wants to look at a picture of a woman with penises in her butt, pussy, and mouth? No, that is very bad, you are too young.
A 16 year old girl wants to go find 3 dudes to put their penises in her butt, pussy, and mouth? Yes, that is OK.
I'm really wondering how they think it's even technically possible. You have a piece of software, that for some reason people can't uninstall, but at the same time it has to be removable if someone pays a fee. So, if this is going to work on every device, and you're going to remove it without destroying the device, then presumably you're just running some program to remove it. So, why can't anyone else remove it? The geniuses in the Kansas legislature have figured out something that I'm not able to see. Surely they're not just writing a pie-in-the-sky bill and expecting "industry" to provide a solution for a problem that they just created.