You originally said competence, not intelligence. You're moving the goalposts.

Competence has a huge training component which is not necessarily tied to intelligence. If the culture of one demographic keeps them from pursuing higher education or attending top schools, they will ultimately be less competent as a demographic. This may translate into a correlation between race and competence and still may not be the result of any racism from outside that demographic.

AOL "died" before broadband came along. AOL, like Compuserve, was a walled garden before it was an ISP (proper). Once the internet as a whole began to provide more compelling content, forums, etc, they shifted to a primary ISP role, but prior to that access to the internet was limited and sketchy.

AOL becoming an ISP was the way that it died. Before that, it was an absolutely huge service with tons of subscribers.

I was actually being cheeky with the followup post, too, by defending my use of "known". I really do need to work on my delivery, though. Even in real life I tend to deliver my jokes a little too deadpan and just get weird looks in response. So I can't fault you for not knowing that I was joking... and history tells me that I'm just going to keep at it!

Honestly, I didn't expect this level of seriousness in response to the comment. I was drinking a bit and it made me chuckle to use her apocryphal quote to tie a comment about elites being parted from their head to the response that the elites could control them with food. It seemed less funny if I pointed out that it originated from someone whose head was not removed in revolution or if I provided an accurate interpretation of the statement instead of a flippant one.

I expected an eyeroll at worst, but I suppose tone has never been communicated well in comments. Perhaps I should have added a winky face? ;)

My comment was intended to be mildly humorous, not factually correct.

So you can read a wikipedia page and have a penchant for overdramatizing trivial things. Color me impressed.

You must be the life of any parties that you manage to get invited to.

Well, she is known for having said that, even if she never actually did.

I believe Marie Antoinette is known for having said a very similar thing...

How is it bullshit? He can't pay market prices for things because of the way that things are current structured, but he addressed this by saying that he thinks things should be structured differently: "I don't want government restricting options available to me, or restricting those that would provide those options to me." There weren't always oil and dairy subsidies and we could do away with them again.

There are many very reasonable things that I want that aren't currently feasible due to the way that our system is structured, too. The structure of society can change, and has continuously changed throughout history. In the grand scheme of things, ending oil or dairy subsidies is a pretty minor tweak to the system.

I don't totally with his stance but it isn't clear that you're actually putting forth any clear argument at all. What is your actual argument?

Well, he's paying for the government subsidies through taxes, so why would he pay that fraction again until the subsidies are discontinued? Since the subsidies are many steps above his interaction at the retail stores, by what mechanism would he even pay the extra money if he wanted to?

In your mind, are those the only two options available to us? Have the government restrict the things that we can do for our own good or voluntarily pay extra to subsidized industries. Your argument doesn't make any sense.

You guys seem to fixate on the lack of gun deaths like it's some sort of magnificent selling point, but it just isn't a relevant factor for the vast majority of Americans.

Most Americans never face any sort of gun-related violence at all. I don't know anybody who's ever been shot or has shot anybody in the US. Gun violence in the US is largely perpetrated by the urban poor against other urban poor. Nobody else in the US, besides professional worriers, lives their life in fear of being shot.

I notice that the poor, who are responsible for nearly all of the gun deaths in the US, are conspicuously absent from your invitation to immigrate to Australia, by the way.

The last sentence of the summary was awesomely qualified:

They had to really stretch that sentence to get around the irony of hosting a privacy advocacy group on Google's servers!

The Google Apps bundles for Cyanogenmod can be used as a means to find most of the components of the apps. It's not perfect, but it's a start. There are still components of stock CM that contact Google, so it goes much deeper.

Totally...

Myopic developer knows the ins and outs of their system and assumes that everybody else must also magically know as much as they do. It's like when you walk into a store that you've never been into, ask the borderline retarded clerk where to find an item, and watch the cretinous condescending look they give you as they think about how they know where that item is and that you must be an idiot for not knowing.

It's very very much like that situation. The inability to comprehend a perspective outside of your own is a shortcoming and character flaw at best (and a common symptom of serious mental deficiency at worst).

If the music player turned on the DLNA server, that would be a valid complaint. Any changes that an app makes to the system should be unmade when that app is uninstalled, especially if those changes are very specific to that app. (There may be multiple apps that require a service and so there may need to be a system in place to insure that apps don't interfere with each other, but just leaving services running after apps are uninstalled is sloppy.)

If you installed a music player that enabled a DNLA server then uninstalled it, why would you expect it to leave the DLNA server running?

It's the syndication model. There may be a price for everything, but exclusivity is enforced by the hypothetical price being outrageously high (~$2/ep would kill Netflix). The dollar model presumes that the dollar theater could pay the same price as the expensive theater and get the same access and that both of them are negotiating with a third-party rights holder.

Unless the amount of money that Hulu is getting for each ad is shockingly high (It's $25-30 CPM), the cost for Netflix to acquire similar rights would be fairly reasonable and they would have likely already done so. Since the holders of the media distribution rights actually own Hulu, it's likely that Hulu is not paying the same price for new shows that Netflix would have to pay (hypothetically, if such an offer was even realistically on the table).

If breaking exclusivity was just a matter of being a bigger company, then Hulu would show Netflix's exclusive content. The key part of my argument, which you keep skirting around, is that Hulu is owned by the media companies and that their exclusive access to those companies' content comes from that fact and not that their ads are allowing them to pay exorbitant royalties.