Spoilt, actually. UI that changes when the user is ready, even when while receiving the latest performance / security / compatibility updates. Not when the corporate overlords want you to switch UI.

I ran Enlightenment (E 16) in my main system for 9 years - 2003 to 2012. Switched (of my own accord) to fluxbox. Still using it. Using FVWM2 on other systems where it makes sense. Not once did a UI change on my main system without my seeking the change. Same configuration file, moved across upgraded hardware.

On non-main systems, I did experiment with Gnome, KDE which change whimsically. But if I avoid Microsoft's stuff, I can keep things stable where it matters.

WHAT ??? Sign up with "insider", which must know your phone number? So share my phone number with the idiots who thought sharing passwords is a great idea?

You must be a moron.

When the law is the way you want, probably Uber will be law abiding. Since it isn't, uber is illegal.

It is 4 am, so you drive at 80 mph. If it were 8 am you would (be able to) drive at 7 mph.

Not sure, but if you don't do it completely, you get windows.

I have already explained this, but I can do the favour of repeating once for idiots.

To X. Unsubstantiated part is that X is same as the road builder/maintainer. Unstated is the transaction between additional tax collector and road builder/maintainer.

Income taxes are even more remotely connected than property taxes to road builders/maintainers for the vast majority of roads in the US.

Ok, this is some implicit mathematics quite difficult for idiots. I will try to make it explicit - show it to some non-idiot and they can explain it directly to you taking into account your specific disabilities.

The public transport that is required for this is the one that will be usable by 10 times higher number of commuters. For some thing to be "the solution" without specified context where a country of 300 million is being discussed, it has to apply to a few millions of people at least. So the public transport that I tell you doesn't exist is the 90% under-utilized mass transport for millions which can actually accommodate tens of millions.

They do.

The reason is that the immigrants are more ready for discrimination in a foreign country for the economic and other opportunities. The home-grown blacks are not ready.

Also, money is the antidote to racist discrimination. And immigrants are rich - especially Indians, Pakistanis, and Chinese. Why? I recently wrote this to explain the success of people moving within the country. It applies even more to people moving to another country. Reproduced below :

A. People motivated enough to move away are likely to be motivated enough to work harder to succeed.

B. 100 talented people living in density of 1 per 500 square miles are much less likely to produce lasting value than those same 100 talented people working together. Teams of great people are more than the sum of their parts. Which means moving their asses to where the good people and opportunities are, for the benefit of themselves and society at large.

C. People away from their homelands MUST work hard. Often there is no family to fall back on.

Due to the reasons Indians, Pakistanis and Chinese migrate to the US - these factors apply more to them, hence this subcommunity of immigrants is richer than most others.

Same can be said for copyrighted work that is released to selected members of public, say for a fee. Despite the difficulty to enforce it since the "digital revolution", society is persisting with copyright. There is no reason to believe it will not persist with some illusion of "return to privacy" too, despite it being difficult to enforce.

Is it difficult to implement? Yes. Is it valuable? Definitely more than centuries old copyright.

It is also individuals fight against corporations. Corporations are typically benefited from centuries of copyright as well as from damaging the privacy of individuals. If corporations got their illusion of centuries of copyrights, there is no reason for individuals to not get their illusion of privacy.

The only external claim that I made was 25-50 storeys being 10 times 4 storeys. Rest all is concluded from that.

If you "value logical arguments very highly" (That was sarcasm), go ahead and provide substantiation for Increased taxes would materialize; property values would go up, and the owners of the property would make more money, thus paying additional taxes

While providing substantiation, remember this statement of yours is about the future, and extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs.

I had not "said" that idiot, I had "basically said" that. http://dictionary.reference.co...

I had guessed from your unsubstantiated claims that you consider emotions more important than logical arguments. But I have not expressed my emotions more clearly because emotions are completely irrelevant.

Since apartheid itself is not OK for so many people in the world, this is not saying anything of substance, is it?

Basically you are saying if "new economic opportunities in an area for certain kinds of people" are themselves not OK, then the gentrification due to that is not OK. Which while being true is irrelevant as it is the gentrification being OK is being discussed. In the situations you point out, gentrification is by itself OK but since it is associated by other non-OK things it acquires a shade of non-OK-ness.

In my last post, I basically asked you if you are sure that increased taxes and benefits from increased incomes to road makers will materialize. If you are, you can go ahead and convince others, though it is far from certain.

Which doesn't exist. Do you mean to say you are sure it will start existing? You yourself said that the increased taxes (I think unsubstantiated) should ideally go towards public transport. Was that an admission of uncertainty?

Do you mean to say you are sure I am upset? If so, one department where you are surely wrong.

I am not in a habit of discussing made up claims, so I will keep my post limited to questioning you, as many of your sentences seem to me just vague possibilities packaged as certainties.

If dedicated non-violent protesters cannot peacefully prevent violent protesters from causing violence, they aren't yet enough in number, or in moral strength, or both. They could call off their protest until they are ready.

The fine amount is not significantly higher than the cost (including labour) of getting a new phone number? Such a low fine wouldn't have worked anyway.

Though the reason could be that it might be illegal for the Police to "cause" someone to commit a crime - and hailing an illegal cab is sometimes considered that. It is difficult to argue against this reason.

Ok, so we are in agreement that the claim in GP post "it's a problem when people who were born and raised in an area can't buy there" is true only in the monopoly/collusion case, and not in general.