Comment Re:smartwatch (Score 1) 381
I like how my Pebble tells me I have an incoming call before my phone rings.
I like how my Pebble tells me I have an incoming call before my phone rings.
Bifocals. I have a pair with clear glass on top and my reading (1.5) at the bottom. Work great for 99% of my day (and pebble watch reading needs). I also have a pair of "birth control glasses" as my wife calls them. Basically, Ben-Franklin type half sized glasses I hang off the tip of my nose and push up to my eyes as I need to work/use the computer. I use those just like bifocals during my "work day".
I felt the same way about watches until recently when I got a pebble. It makes a difference not taking out my phone a few dozen times a day. I also like the fact that it "buzzes" at me when I get more than 30 ft or so away from my phone. It's kept me from forgetting it either in the car or desk more than once.
"If all you want is to know the time, your phone already solves that problem for you "
I haven't owned/used a watch in over a decade for that very reason -- until recently. I got a pebble. And my opinion has completely changed. I LIKE not needing to take my phone out every a few dozen times a day. I like seeing who I calling an sending them to VM or not without taking out my phone.
As far beauty goes, the pebble isn't the fugliest thing around. It actually looks half way decent. And the newer versions are even better.
Do you REALLY need a color screen?
I get over 1 week on a single charge with my pebble. I think THAT makes it a huge difference in any other "smartish" watch out there. Add color would mean more power. Add sound, or more "two-way" functions and again, you require more power.
I completely agree. I have a pebble and just being able to glance at it while on the road to see who is calling or texting/emailing is a huge convenience. Or in a theater where it makes virtually no noise and I can see it without lifting my arm up and the "glow" is next to non-existent but readable.
I STOPED wearing a watch over a decade ago because I had a phone which told me the time. Oh how things have come full circle.
Forget the apps -- it's the alerts that make it useful.
And it doesn't look like there will be a true SL7:
Not my "meme." I rarely, if ever, refer to it.
But, it's true. Capitalism relies on private control and a free, competitive market. Crony capitalism is government control and a resulting non-free market by explicitly decreasing competition.
I mean, sure, you can call it whatever you want to, but when I say "capitalism works" and someone says "crony capitalism is proof it doesn't," that's just stupid, because crony capitalism flatly violates some of the primary tenets of capitalism.
It was a different fork of this thread.
So you admit you lied.
Crony capitalism
False, but telling that you think such a stupid thing. To you, there's no difference between freedom, and not-freedom. It's just two different options, neither better than the other.
It is also noted that you have still failed to produce an example of a federal regulation that actually impedes profitability of health insurance companies.
a. I never saw you ask that. It might've been in the comment I replied to, and I didn't see it, because after your massive whopper about what you want people to think crony capitalism is, I stopped reading.
b. Why would I produce an example of something I never asserted? Once again: holy shit, you're retarded.
For example, does state law say you cannot participate in GOP runoff if you participated in Dem primary?
I think that's the case McDaniel is making, and I haven't heard it refuted.
I haven't seen the case strongly made. If you have a link, I'd be obliged. Stories I saw all handwaved at it.
You don't seem to understand that in modern America, "having rules and enforcing them" == "voter suppression".
But they are Republicans. Voter suppression is expected. It's OK.
Check the mirror and see if you don't notice a big ol' raaaaacist in there, or something.
Only because I see YOU STANDING BEHIND ME. What the fuck, man?!?
Sorry, no. I have these things called pride and integrity.
You fucking asshole.
Nice, except you said "altruism," which is an illusion. True, Cochran is not altruistic, but no one ever is.
This is the first I've heard of this. I want to know specifics. For example, does state law say you cannot participate in GOP runoff if you participated in Dem primary? And is that what happened? If so, then yes, Cochran should lose, but really, MS screwed up, because they should have disallowed those Dem primary voters from participating.
Fuck everyone who wants to use government to push "fairness." "Fairness" isn't a real thing: nothing is inherently fair or unfair, except for someone violating your rights (unfair) or you exercising your rights (fair). There is no other objective concept of fairness. So when someone is pushing "fairness" through the government -- except in those limited senses of protecting individual rights -- they are really pushing their own private moral judgments on everyone else, taking away our freedoms even more.
Except it's not a strawman
Except, it is.
As d_r reworded, the premise is that to stop greedy businessmen from getting too much power, you sick other greedy businessmen to them
Wow. You really think that damn_registrars, of all people in the world, claiming A means B, is actual evidence that A means B?
Seriously?
I was attacking the notion, as the OP quoted, "If you want to catch a thief, set a thief to catch him"
Yes, within a certain context, where government is not siding with the thiefs. You attacked that notion within the context where government is siding with the thiefs (or, at least, you were ignoring whether government was siding with the thiefs).
As I noted in another comment, crony capitalism is not capitalism. Your claim "The existence of crony capitalism is counterexample to the notion that capitalism will protect us" is idiotic, because either it is saying that crony capitalism is capitalism, or it is saying that smitty claimed capitalism will solve all our problems regardless of what government does. Obviously, neither of those is true.
I disagree with your disagreement. Using one's natural faculties to create wealth to further one's own interests is something even animals do.
False. You do not know what "wealth" is. Try harder.
Capitalism is simply a means to an end.
It's the only reasonable means to the end. In what other system would I be free to use my natural faculties to create wealth to further my own interests? Every other system we have works to prevent me from using my natural faculties, or at least significant restricts it, or else it takes my wealth after I've created it, or else it restricts what I can do with my wealth. Capitalism is the only means we've yet seen in humanity for doing this, except for, perhaps, anarchy, which is destructive in other ways.
Adam Smith: it is not from the kindness of bakers in which we get our bread.
You offer this quote as though it disagrees with me in some way. Why?
It's called throwing in additional points to stir discussion.
But, as I said, it was not merely a non sequitur, it was also meaningless. It said nothing. It made no point, and had no meaning.
I was addressing the notion virtue touched upon by the OP.
Yes, by dishonestly and meaninglessly claiming that virtue is only for churches, and not all other aspects of our lives.
Is your job running? You'd better go catch it!
