Do you have any data to back it up?
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Do you have any data to back it up?
I'm sorry, but if every version of your OS is trivially jail-breakable (with, for example, exploits that amount to root privilege escalation by simply visiting a web page on the device's browser), you are NOT a bastion of security.
You can argue that Apple does a better job of "securing" their app store than Google does, but that doesn't make the devices themselves any more secure. Just because something trivially exploitable hasn't been exploited (that you know of
You do the same fucking thing in every Apple story or Android story, because you're a hilarious Apple apologist. Get down off your high horse. You're not fooling anybody.
My first thought when I read this was, "how is this any different than the fact that Apple pays for product placement in *every* TV show or movie that has a laptop or phone in it?" And for the record, I'm disgusted by both forms of advertising.
You can come up with a plan and work hard to improve a situation and still know that it's unfair and that it doesn't have to be that way. This false dichotomy between being a professional victim vs. being responsible for your actions is just a conservative talking point.
If one observes a pigeon shitting on all the cars in one area (under a statue perhaps), is it bigotry to be a little cautious parking your car and seeing a a pigeon heading your way....maybe you want to park somewhere else ?
No, it's not bigotry to avoid parking your car around pigeons. However, it became bigotry when you compared black people to pigeons.
Do you have evidence that safety features make up 90% of the cost of a car, or is that just a number you pulled out of your ass? Kind of like the '99% of regulations being bad' idiocy that started this thread.
If you have data, show it. Maybe you'll convince somebody. Otherwise DO NOT QUOTE NUMBERS. It just makes you look like a jackass.
No, it isn't at all. The entire article is flamebait. Network neutrality is about making it illegal to prioritize or block internet traffic from domains that aren't even directly connected to whatever ISP you have (Verizon, Comcast, whoever). e.g. Comcast wants to charge Netflix extra for its packets to go across its routers, even though Netflix has no direct peering with Comcast, and Netflix's upstream provider(s) has already entered into agreements with Comcast.
This is simply a service agreement between a customer and a service provider. It could be a stupid service agreement, but it isn't a network neutrality issue and no amount of bleating will make it so.
So, you're for "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" then?
Nice strawman, but I'll respond anyway. (Also, are you aware that "slippery slope" is the name of a fallacy? Not an argument?)
No, "ends justifies the means" doesn't justify torture and here's why.
1) It doesn't work.
2) Torturing their soldiers/"enemy combatants" loses us any sort of moral standing on the issue. We can't use their reprehensible behavior to garner sympathy from neutral parties when we do the same thing.
So in this case, the "ends" aren't desirable. Therefore they can't be used to justify the means.
It's nice that you feel so strongly about government corruption, but then get so fucking defensive when corruption is exposed. It's almost like double-think. Oh wait, no, it is double-think.
Now I'm sure that you'll equate my nuanced view to double-think, but here's the difference: I'm actually thinking. I look at each situation and try to evaluate them individually and see what outcomes I can expect from them, and may well come to the conclusion that something is bad in one situation and not bad in another situation. YOU, on the other hand, take event A, try to find something else that you can compare it to (event B), and then use your judgement of event B to decide whether event A is good or bad. One of us is thinking; the other is doing pattern matching.
As far as I can tell, there has been absolutely nothing bad that has resulted from Manning's leaks. From where I sit, life has gone on pretty much unchanged. I fail to see how terrible his actions are when, predictably, none of the doomsday scenarios envisioned by folks like yourself came to pass.
Well it's comforting to know that we aren't as bad as Nazis.
And I'm sorry, but there's nothing about "Child Labour Watch" that raises it above the rest of the noise.
LA LA LA I can't hear you! LA LA LA!
The story here, as usual, is that Apple is no better than anybody else. And everybody seems to know this except you.
You miss the parts where your husband could beat you with impunity.
No they couldn't. Wife beating has never been acceptable. This is a myth.
Going to work might seem like fun now, but I think you might change your tune about going to work if that were always your only option. If you had never been given the option to choose to be a stay at home parent (even if you end up hating it), you might not be so excited to stay at home. Some choice is better than none.
And if you honestly believe that today men have an option of being a stay-at-home parent, you're delusional. In the US and most of the rest of the world, a woman won't even *look* at you unless you make at least as much as she does.
Nah, because that would take away from time you could spend bitching and moaning about one available option, among *many*, that doesn't perfectly suit your specific needs.
You're a Mac guy. You like stuff that does things for you. We get it.
*We* like stuff that lets us do things we want. If you don't understand the difference, that just reinforces my point.
When Obama does something like this, the media print stories about how wonderful he is and nothing he does could ever be bad.
Why do you type this shit? Do you honestly believe it?
People only say "The 1%" because it's easier to say than what it really is, which is closer to the 0.001%, but the concept is not difficult to grasp. The vast majority of wealth and power is concentrated in very few hands.
But somehow, even this simple concept seems to have gone over your head, and you think that it makes sense to lump someone making $40k/year (in the US, I assume) into the same group as someone making tens of millions per year. At this point I'm going to assume that your feigned ignorance is either real ignorance or, quite possibly, stupidity.
Nothing is more admirable than the fortitude with which millionaires tolerate the disadvantages of their wealth. -- Nero Wolfe