Guessing these will be banned from government facilities too...
Guessing these will be banned from government facilities too...
OK, sometimes you have to go to blogs related to the news to find the commenters pointing out that the story lacked even the basic fact-checking of Google and Wikipedia, but I've seen the same on the story itself
"Journalism" isn't "what reporters do", but narration of the "facts on the ground". Facts in quotes, since shortly after an event, when the news is hot, we rarely know the truth of anything. (Heck, is Obama a Muslim? I think he's more of a Muslim than Bill Clinton was a Christian: that's a religious group he wouldn't mind political support from, isn't going to actively antagonize, and will occasionally give a nod to in a speech.)
Comments sections often call out mistakes in reporting (and it's basically all mistakes, as you'll know if you've ever been involved in something reported, or especially if you've been interviewed), or add details or contrary points of view. That's journalism.
They have everything to due with free expression, which is ultimately the point of journalism. Given your posting history, I suspect you usually agree with the official narrative the papers generally print instead of the truth, and get upset when people point out that it's all BS, so I can understand your emotional response here. But you should still support free expression, even when you disagree with it.
Plasma? What is this, 1998?
Fairly new plasma. Still beats any LCD screen for movies. OLED might win in the end, but those were ~$10k at the time, so I didn't bother to compare.
Yes, I am bemoaning the loss of the plasma screen, I still think it has the best blacks, but still.
I bought a 60" plasma screen last year. It has terrific blacks, from the panel itself, to a special non-glare coating, to a "round down" function to handle the case where the HDMI stream ends up encoding black as "almost black", and forcing it back to black.
Plasma TVs vanished from the bottom-end, but they still exist. OLED might genuinely replace plasma, though.
My home theater setup is a 60" plasma screen attached to my laptop. It's only used as a display panel, but it works fine for that (text isn't great, but movies are). I enjoy a real home theater setup over any tablet or whatever. I doubt that use is going away.
I think the big failure is that "Smart TVs" just aren't quite good enough to replace the "TV sticks", or at least not at a competitive price. But a big dumb display panel that looks great; that I want.
There are three parties in the US now:
* The Left, not materially represented in Congress, but Bernie Sanders is an example of a Left politician.
* The Right, not materially represented in Congress, but Ben Carson is an example of a Right politician.
* The Donor Party, which includes the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans in government (at least at the federal level), and which gets great and responsive representation.
Our government is very attentive and responsive to the best interest of the constituents who sent them to office. The problem is those constituents are the big money donors, not the people who are voting Democrat or Republican.
It's structurally possible to fix this though primary elections, and by "primary-ing out" incumbents. But we, the voters, need to start caring more about evicting the Donor Party guys than about whether Left or Right win. The Donor Party games us every year by calling the non-Donor Party guys "extremists" for daring to represent what the people actually want. Can we stop caring about how the mainstream media describes candidates? I'm doubtful, but it's possible.
Lifelock is essentially worthless.
They are a "monitoring" service.
So what they do is go "Woo! Someone just got hold of this person's info and might be misusing it! Isn't that interesting?"
They're a fucking confidence scam.
It was established legal tradition in Britain for some time before the US war for independence that people were allowed to own guns because, even though hunting was illegal, guns weren't only for hunting, they could be used to defend one's home. It was common in the colonies (where everyone had guns, and hunting was legal) that every man was required to bring his gun to church on Sunday, in case a group of men with guns was required for any purpose. These guns were expected to be serviceable military weapons - a tradition going back to the late medieval period, where every man was required to own a weapon of war in case that was needed (and swords were very cheaply available after the plague, so real military weapons, not farm implements, were expected).
There are still several modern nations in which every man of age is required to own a modern military rifle (issued by the government). This idea that somehow the "right to keep and bear arms" excludes modern military small arms is a very modern contrivance, and not at all the intent of the Second Amendment. Heck, not just small arms - even 100 years ago cannon were typically bought for the town by the wealthy, and taken off to war when needed.
It's a very simple idea with centuries of legal tradition behind it: a free man has the right to own a gun, and not just for hunting, but actual military small arms. Totalitarian states disarm their subjects to prevent uprisings. Free societies have an armed populace to keep the government nervous about uprisings. It really is that fundamental.
You have to get licensed to own a gun, drive a car, and you have to register to vote.
You do not have to get licensed to own a gun, at least in states that show the slightest respect for the US Constitution. You do not have to get licensed to drive a car, unless you want to drive it in public places (and even then, driving farm equipment on farm-to-market roads doesn't require a license, as that was seen as an undue burden). You don't, in practice, have to register to vote, unless you live somewhere that requires an ID to vote - and most states see an ID as an undue burden.
You don't need a pilots license to fly a plane (well, most planes), if you stay at low altitude and away form airports. You shouldn't need to register to own a drone, or to fly one as long as you stay at low altitude and away from airports.
The best TV display panels come attached to smart TV B, and even mid-line TVs use a fast processor to avoid motion artifacts, so the smart TV BS is just piled on.
However, it's not like your TV is going to start using your wi-fi without configuring it. I'm not much worried about it spying.
Now I prefer that it remain pretty and nice from a code point of view, even at the cost of "adoption by the majority of users."
Didn't that ship sail long ago? Ubuntu, Gnome, etc, etc, all chasing adoption at the expense of what made Linux special for years now.
It's like a cold war between Firefox and Chrome
Nah. Chrome won a while ago. Because terminally over-sensitive panty-waists that are now all that's left of Mozilla are done innovating their own browser. Now they're going to slob, incessantly, on the Google knob, until their product may as well be called Chromezilla.
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]