You choose to watch videos on those feeds.

You don't choose to watch a seizure-inducing flashing video unless it's either clearly labeled as such, or you have pyschic powers. Compare: you open your front door and out of nowhere a lion leaps at you. Did you "choose" to be eaten by a lion?

Of course, since the mechanism that generates seizures from flashing content is a pretty simple function of said content's pixel values, such labeling could easily be done automatically. And I'm sure at least Google would be more than happy to let you let them know you wish to not see such videos, or perhaps even offer a "de-seizured" edited version.

By your definition, insults are hate speech.

Which, of course, they are. People tell insults to work themselves up. They're psychological preparation to overcome the inhibitions against harming others. Since humans are pack animals, this preparation needs to take such highly visible form so either the victim or other members of the pack have a chance to interfere.

Look at every genocide in history. They all have a campaign of escalating slander preceding them.

Hate speech is like pornography/obscenity: No one can define it, and it's usually strangely close to "Stuff I don't like."

Pornography is speech aimed at causing sexual excitement, and hate speech is speech aimed at establishing it as acceptable to harm someone. Don't confuse people making excuses for themselves either way for the actual concepts being vague.

It's not that bad, actually. I moved from a steady job to contracting and it's not like you run a full-fledged business. I get my work through a bunch of agencies, so I don't have to do calling and selling and what have you. I just spread my resume around those, and they call and email me. There's also a local site where you can check out companies looking for a contractor. Once you have a client, it's usually a multi-month/-year, stable affair.

I do my own bookkeeping because I happen to like it, but a friend of mine simply gives it to an accountant. Since it's only a one bill a month and a handful of invoices, the costs are quite limited.

And I easily earn twice of what I used to earn.

#1 and #2 are great ideas. Tough ideas, but great if you can pull it off without crippling the economy.

Things start to fall apart around #3. As I have stated before, laws disproportionately affect those who are honest enough to follow them. Guns laws will REALLY stop honest people from getting them, and you HOPE that a little splashes over to the criminals. And if you have a criminal without a gun, you still have a criminal.

Look at the UK. I dare you to do this: do a Google image search for "stop knife violence." Since England has mostly tamed the gun beast, they are now turning their sights on knives, since people who intend to kill use whatever tools are at hand. Do you carry a Leatherman tool? I have heard (but no 1st hand knowledge) that you can get arrested for that in London since it has a locking blade.

And even if you DID manage to get rid of all knives, people would switch to another tool. "Stop cricked bat violence" anyone?

If get get rid of a gun, the criminal can use other tools. If you get rid of the criminal, you have NO reason to fear guns. It is as simple as that.

The point of laws is to describe what bad behavior is, and determine a punishment.

Outlawing murder does NOT stop a murder from happening, it just allows you to punish the criminal once they are caught, and provides a deterrent. If a person is willing to commit a murder and break that law, what logical process leads you to believe that this person will suddenly worry about gun laws too?

Ultimately guns laws are a disproportional burden to the honest people. Did France's gun laws stop the attack on the magazine office? And yet it is the honest people of France that have to obey those laws.

Please think just a little deeper than a knee-jerk reaction.

And no mention on the leakage power. Curious. Smaller transistors have less dynamic power, but higher static power.

For some reason, probably because you posted some amazingly insightful comment in the past, I have you marked as a friend here. Thus a new journal appears in my message center and I read it :)

No, because a big hurdle is of course lithography on 7 nanos, but the even bigger hurdle is using it with a high enough yield to make it commercially viable.

But of course that won't stop someone with a spreadsheet & a mission from finding a correlation & implying a sinister causation.

And they should certainly have an easy time at it too. Women not getting offers for high-paying jobs because that would take room from shoe ads is pretty much a defining example of structural sexism, and you writing it yet not noticing anything problematic with it that of unconscious sexism.

The Kessel Run was covered in one of the novels. I am guessing that the novels are no longer canon.

Actually, what IS the story? Supposedly the new movie covers the Solo kids based on what happened in the novels, but the prequals (1-3) totally crapped on the back story of Boba Fett.

I also saw Chewy, but he died in one of the novels too.

What is canon and what isn't?

Ah, really? Well then you first then as your characterization of the existence of poor people in today's society "gives you a way to keep them in their place" is a typical lie of those claiming that others need to give more to make the problem go away.

I'm not asking you, or anyone, to give anything. I'm simply pointing out that the AC's attitude, that of someone making 20 times as much as someone else as well as holding all the power in the situation yet still believing themselves to be the victim is precisely the kind of self-deception that makes poverty possible in the first place. And I also claim this is not an accident, but an intentional aim of our current social structure - poverty exists to ensure factories have an unending supply of desperate labour, or more generally, that there's people who both hold all the power in and have every reason to support the system.

Basically, the AC followed his cultural programming which makes him unable to see the basic absurdity in what he posted, and you followed yours which prompts you to attack any perceived criticism of the basic assumptions of the system - in this case unequality and one-sided dependence - and apparently you picked an old Cold War relic memetic program to type the actual text. Or possibly got one from an old archive or something. Which is what I'm trying to figure out.

So, did you grow up during the Cold War, or...?

Humiliation? WTF? How's that work? It's not humiliating, it's frustrating.

Neither is appropriate for when people refuse to care about your orders because you don't have any authority over them. You aren't paying so you aren't in any position to demand features, or anything else.

Like I said, it's the "you're not my boss, fuck you" attitude that really turns people away.

It's not "you're not my boss, fuck you" but "you're not my boss, so stop giving me orders". Altough I suppose "fuck you" could very quickly follow if you refused to take the hint.

The attitude you just displayed right there. Are you a developer on any open source projects?

So disagreeing with you is "fuck you" to you? Seriously?

If software companies are upset that we're obstinately staying with older versions of their products, instead of paying for the latest and greatest, the answer might be simply "I know how to use this version, and I don't want to spend hours with each new revision trying to figure out where you've hidden the button this time."

More to the point, the concept of "product" was part of Industrial Age and simply doesn't make sense in Information Age. In the world of plenty a business model based on scarcity requires you to create artificial scarcity and inevitably makes you a villain. It also doesn't work. Current software companies stay afloat because Information Age is only dawning, and the old myths - the values and patterns of behavior consider the "default" - of Industrial Age have held dominance; but as economy leaves industrial production a niche, just like it did agriculture earlier, copyrights and their underlaying ideas if "software is property" will lose what little power they still have and selling software will become impossible.

So what will replace it? Perhaps some kind of "work for hire" model. In this model, software houses didn't have products, rather they'd implement new features and polish existing ones, maybe funded through something like Kickstarter. Then again, it's possible that, as Information Age progresses and the new model becomes the default, the entire concept of property will simply crumble. After all, if a robot built by other robots builds a doohickey from materials mined by yet more robots, why should it "belong" to anyone? If I want one, I can just tell the robots to build one; if you want one, you can tell them to build one too. Nobody needs to be paid.

If this happens - if production will become a background process like trees making oxygen, unlike the entire focus of human existence like it currently is - then future will basically be a communist utopia developing, as Marx predicted, when ideological - currently capitalistic - covering of the society has outlived its usefulness and said society sheds it, like it has many others previously. Which may or may not be enough to stop gratuitous changes to user interface.

Why should an old person learn to use (in rapid succession) CompuServe, AOL, Yahoo, LiveJournal, Myspace, Facebook, Flicker, Pinterest, Instagram (and so on and so on), instead of his relatives putting a little effort into hand written letters and face time?

Because those handwritten letters and face time are going to become a chore very soon, and chores have a tendency to be "forgotten", especially when they only exist in the first place because their benefactee is too lazy to invest into learning modern communication methods.

If you make it hard for other people to stay in contact, they probably won't bother.

The vast majority of mass shootings happen in "gun free zones." And yet the likes of Obama and CNN seem to be amazed that a criminal would walk right past this sign.