Finding stuff I am looking for. I would put 'finding stuff I am looking for' on the top of the feature list for a search engine.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Ah, fucking hell, almost nothing new is new but if they can put satellites up at 6.6 million dollars a pop that is certainly new.
How many people come up with their own products that are really built from nothing into something that others want to use? The answer is: not many. Anybody who is able to start a company and bring a product up and succeed in all of this without losing their sanity, health, all the money and family in this world is a fucking hero as far as I am concerned.
How about medical applications? 1mm^3 is actually small enough to be put in a pill and go through your digestive system. Cover it in some glass coating to avoid acid from melting it, swallow a bunch over a number of time intervals, have sensors on the surface that measure whatever can be measured and you may have some interesting results. It is still too big to be injected into your blood stream, need to shrink it another 10-100 times to do that I guess, but it is an interesting way to develop computing by combining it further with the medical field. You can actually embed 1mm^3 computers into your bones and other tissue and not even feel them probably, while they are sending their data to your phone and to your physician.
As a libertarian my position never changed, I always root for the individual (and a company is property of an individual, so the same logic applies) to win against the violence of the collective. Governments are the ultimate and most violent (wars) representation of the collective. Government is the ultimate weapon of the mob against an individual and his freedoms. Realizing that the real virtue is in the Individual freedom and the non aggression principle is how you fix the issue of tribalism destroying rationality.
Those who cannot do - sue.
The entire premise of 'anti-trust' coming from a government, ANY government is laughable in every possible way. The only real monopolies that can abuse power are created by governments and it is government power that is abused by them, as for Google and other companies that compete among each other and may become dominant (for some time) in a market - this is due to the choice of the clients, who collectively vote for that company to be in a more dominant position at that time.
That's no moon. It's a space station!
I run a feminist forum
- so then what is the point if the entire forum is a troll?
You are choosing temporary convenience over individual freedom, at the end you will have no convenience and no freedom.
Absolutely 100% correct.
Also I would like to add that if this strategy is somehow supposed to 'help women' it is also going to backfire, just like all such nonsensical regulations rather than market based ideas do. There are plenty of women who will get hurt through the indirect action of their husbands/significant others not being able to get a better paying job.
Even if men were payed more because they were better negotiators (which is not the reason for the higher pay that *some* men command over women as you have already mentioned) it doesn't mean that lowering their pay (which is all that this proposed 'solution' is) will not hurt women! Many of those men have women in their lives and when a man's potential earnings are capped by such artificial barriers those women (and the entire families) will also feel the sting.
You are absolutely correct, don't pay attention to lawsuit trolls like rahvin112 with his nonsensical socialist comment, where he proves that he wants to force everybody to cater to his specific needs whether they want to deal with him or not.
You are correct.
The last 2 and a half comments from you were pure garbage, so I don't see a point talking on these terms. Cheers.
Seems like FB account is something that all businesses jumped onto. I read stats that show that 63% is the average participation on FB (for developed nations I suppose), that 56% people recommend products on FB, 64.2% skim recommendations, 38% conduct product research within 4 weeks of finding a product on FB, 27% are more likely to make a purchase because of FB recommendation.
Now look at it from business point of view, they know they have to be on this media to have those numbers apply to them.
Personally I don't have FB account, but a business seems to need one.
Then it follows from your comment that 99% of English speakers are spoon fed social justice theory that prevents them from understanding the most basic things.
Should a Jewish photographer be forced to take pictures at a Nazi party? Especially when in fact there are thousands of other photographers that will do it for you.
Should a black baker be forced to bake a KKK cake for the Klan meeting? Especially when in fact there are thousands of other bakers that will do it for you.
Should an atheist doctor be forced to perform brit milah (circumcision) on religious grounds? Especially when in fact there are thousands of other doctors that will do it for you.
Basically to find a single case of a business that will discriminate against whatever practice or religion or race one has to go very much out of their way.
I am sure that to make a story out of this (like a story of a cake maker that would not make cakes for some gay wedding or a story of a photographer that will not work at a gay wedding) one has to call up dozens if not hundreds of businesses out of Yellow Pages specifically looking to create a story out of nothing.
The zealot is you, the person who believes that if there is one business out there that will not serve you based on whatever prejudice that the business holds, it must be made illegal for that business to exist even though the rules of the market and competition ensure that you have dozens, hundreds, thousands of options.
You are wrong because you don't understand what a right is. You think you have a right to dictate to other people and to take their rights away to get your entitlements, you see rights as something that must be taken away from somebody else and given to you.
Rights are protections against government abuse, you can't have a moral society where some people use violence of the State to steal rights of others and give themselves entitlements they believe they have a 'right' to.
Your belief is a belief of somebody who wants to enslave others to himself and that is definitely immoral.
So the Civil Rights movement was not related to any "rights"?
- civil rights movement did one (1) of 2 things that was correct, it insisted that government must treat everybody equally and it must.
It did one more thing, which was absolutely illegal, unconstitutional and most importantly immoral, it destroyed rights of individuals to private property and association when it caused businesses to be regulated that way.