I'm not interested in this movie for a couple of reasons, but foremost - it's introducing an over-powered character late in the series as a deus ex machina to defeat Thanos.

Marvel's 'Captain Marvel' (not mine - can't wait for the REAL Captain Marvel - Shazam!) is being introduced to late in the story arc to be anything more than a spoiler for Infinity Wars - End Game. We've spent years watching and getting to know all of the other characters. Watching them lose at the end of Infinity War was the set up to have them bind together, push harder then ever before, and triumph over the loss.

Introducing a 'god like' character at this point makes it look like they couldn't win, and that robs the entire story of it's hope and inspiration. It takes the message of working together, building something better from the parts, and replaces it with a message of 'greater powers exist'. I find it unpalatable, and an unfitting end to a story ~15 years in the telling. If you'd wanted Carol Danvers in the story, she should have been added before Dr. Stange. Highlight that there are 'greater powers' than what the Avengers know, and let her circle back in. But this introduction is the wrong time.

The ending of GotG (after the dance off) was the Guardians coming together as a team to win. That was the lesson, and it's a good one - especially after 'Civil War' - seeing everyone come together to face the bigger problem when things are darkest. It is a very relevant story.

Tony Stark needs to end Thanos to conclude the story with where it started (Iron Man). I'd prefer Steve Rogers do it, but Iron Man came first.

If humanity is to have any hope, it's going to come from the ADHD side of things. Cure all the diseases you want to, but please for the love of god, allow the natural flowering of creativity.

Don't allow us to make drones and brainiacs - that will snuff out the species faster than any other eugenics program could.

Since you decided to 'set aside whataboutism' - please tell me what culture you believe has a sterling record on Human Rights? Which you think come even close to that of the British Empire?

While I object to the means used; the means were the standard in those times, but the ends were not. The ends wrought by the British Empire have exceeded those of almost any other culture you can point to, and I suspect will exceed in providing human rights to the greatest number vs any culture you can point to.

And taking your other point - remember the British Empire - which did more:
* To abolish slavery in the world than any other civilization has in it's past
* Has brought more nations and human beings out of poverty than any other civilization on a world scale
* Has done more to advance science over religion around the world than any other culture in history.

So 'To be fair' - tell me what nation has done more good for human rights in this world than the British Empire - or the USA - which was brought forth from Britian.

Everyone on these threads always seems to be missing a bunch of points.

China (and other countries) have benefited greatly from the move of American manufacturing to their countries. That benefit to them has also created a loss in our own capabilities.American companies moved outside the US because if they didn't, those who would could undercut them. If the cost of doing business in those countries is more than the cost of doing business in the US, then that advantage is gone.

It may be too late to reverse that course. Outsourcing to China has been going on since the 70's at least, and that is over 40 years of technical know-how gone and lost. Think of it like if you paid someone else to do your homework. Sure you might have gotten good grades, but you can't pass the test when the time comes.

At this point, if China were to tell America 'We don't want to do business with you', America would be very stuck, because we've lost that capability, but China would still have other trading opportunities.

The only way back is to make the cost of building in America more competitive. Bumping up the price of doing business overseas is one part of that. Tax breaks for developing in America is another. Cutting down some regulations is another. Personally, I'd work on allowing a pathway for American companies to bring their money back onshore; and then hit them with an R&D regulation to keep the taxes low.

Manufacturing is a large part of what made America great, but we've passed along that torch. At this point, we're like grand-children spending the fortune our ancestors made. That is not a sustainable path. We're doing the same thing with cutting out need to Middle East Oil; it's time we build up our manufacturing and infrastructure again.

Not that I don't think Twitter _could_ do that, it would be a big mistake for them. Does anyone have a second of doubt that Trump wouldn't switch to something like Gab, Mastedon, or whatever. And does anyone doubt he would mandate that @POTUS, and every Executive branch federal agency also move?

Sure that's not Twitter's main focus, but if every one of those went, and blacklisted Twitter... I'm not sure that would be good for Twitter's traffic numbers. But I am sure that it would be massive for whatever platform he moved to.

Small notes:

The purpose of the ban is to avoid influencing juries. This is partially because the British system handles jury selection differently than the US system. Additionally, they do not do sequestration either at all, or in the same fashion - I'm not quite as clear on that facet. As such, there is some potential that reporting may influence the jury. I'm not really sure how that impacts the 'celebrity' cases, but that is the purpose of the news blackouts.

Second, Tommy supposedly believed he was there for the sentencing portion of a trial - i.e. after the deliberation was complete, so there was not risk of biasing the jury. Except, due to the number of defendants in the child rape gang, the case was being in 3 tranches. Tommy was there for the sentencing of the second tranche.

So while his reporting could have no impact on the outcome of the trial he was reporting on, it may have had some impact on the next set of defendants getting an un-biased jury. Or at least that is what the expectation is that the defense would argue. Of course, an argument could also be made that what he was reporting on had already been published in at least one newspaper, so it's a bit of a question as to what he was a doing different - except for perhaps expanding the number of people that would see the defendants.

Third, while he was convicted for 'Contempt of Court' for doing something similar ~12 months ago, there are a couple of differences worth noting. From the case last year - A) He was filming on court property, which is illegal. B) The judge in that case gave him some leniency in his use of language and the approach he took with the accused due to not being a trained journalist. Why is this relevant? Because in this instance, while he was reporting, he was following the instruction he had been giving from that previous court case to avoid running afoul of the court again.

Forth is the general arrest shenanigans. He was arrested for 'Suspected Breach of the Peace', his lawyer was told he was going to be released and not to travel, he was hustled (in less than 5 hours) before the judge (who may have watched him getting arrested), where the charges shifted to Contempt of Court, and he was defended by a court appointed lawyer. It's believed that his 'Guilty' plea was done at the advise of that court lawyer, despite it not being in his defendants best interest. Following all of that, the judge put in a reporting ban on Tommy's case. There is a lot to be scared of in that scenario - in next to no time, a thorn in the state's side got vanished, and no one was allowed to talk about it.

I'm not really a fan of Tommy - but I do tend to support those who any government dislike. I believe Tommy, like Brexit, is one of many 'blow back' responses to failures of the UK government; and the British government specifically. I believe Tommy is latching on to the rape gang issue to promote his platform. But if the government had done it's job, he wouldn't have anything to associate himself with.

I know this is late to the party, but...

I believe in a company promoting the 'floor' level of pay for a position. I think it would resolve a lot of the self-evaluation doubt, and let people evaluate themselves with their co-workers. By not defining 'ceilings', the upper bounds are still ambiguous, but people can evaluate themselves in a better understanding of how the company values them.

It also shows how progression 'may' be beneficial. But, because there is no ceiling in place, you can have that 'Sr. Developer' that is baselined at 75k in the same position for 20 years, and leave a window for question for why he didn't take 'Tech Lead' baselined at 90k.

It eases negotiation, but also allows it room. To me, this is an ideal solution.

You were doing so well with the first two points. Then, well, you got over your skies.

In the first two cases, you propose wantonly engaging in an activity which does pose a (significant) risk of harm.

In the third case, you are choosing to purchase controlled items; granted, which _could be used_ to cause significant harm, but the ownership in and of itself does not constitute a risk of harm to anyone else. At least no more (significantly) so than your ownership of the vehicle you used in the first two cases.

I note that you called out ignoring the laws on those items, but did not call out ignoring the laws regarding licensing, insuring, and titling your vehicle.

You would have done better to say 'I want to take my legally purchased firearm with a large capacity magazine and go target shooting at the park next to the kids playground'.

But you didn't. Because you are conflating ownership of a firearm with intent to cause harm.

Which brings us to your root argument; the foundation of 'Harm' as the basis of our legal standard.

We have laws that exist to codify societal mores, such as safe operation of a three ton steel vehicle. We have courts that exist to decide punishment when those mores are broken. And, the foundation of our legal system is (supposed to be) proportional punishment for the 'Harm' caused by the infraction. The punishment should 'hurt' the offender enough that they do not offend again.

Now then, regarding the 'Letter of the Law' foundation you are proposing. Do you have any idea how many laws you break on a daily basis? Assuming you live in the USA, it's fairly safe to assume it's at least once a day. Do you deserve punishment for all of those infractions? No.

Law is fallible, open to grey areas, and thus we have the courts to decide cases based upon.... guess what? HARM DONE. This harm may be perceived as harm to society - such as making sure that speed limits in school zones is respected, but it is still a perceived harm.

I would suggest that (assuming you are American) you take a look at the foundations of our legal system, as well as spending some time contemplating what Freedom (as codified in the 9th amendment) means and how it measures up to your daily existence.

I really like my smart watch (Samsung Gear s2 Classic). That said, my wife has gone through 3 different ones trying to find something that has some appealing style and functionality. She's pretty happy with her s2, but it's very 'sporty' looking. We both like the rotating bezel control for the Gear s2 series, but it only comes in 2 styles. Most of the other smart watches out there are a PITA to use. I really wish Samsung would open up their bezel control, because it is very easy to use. Honestly, the best feature I've found is that I get my notifications on my wrist. This means I don't ever have to take my eyes off the road to see what's just pinged me to see if it's something I need to pull over to deal with.

Just making sure I'm clear here. Because you volunteer your time, you have more right to determine who can be president of our nation than I do.

I'm an Independent, thankfully my state allows me to vote for whom I think will do the best for our Country, regardless of supporting a 'party'.

However, if I lived somewhere else, where I did not have that luxury; your vote would be worth more than mine.

Why?

One of the big gaps in the EV Market - and one that Ford is ideal to capitalize on is the lack of any Pickups and Vans. Companies would probably love to be able to have an electric fleet that not only can carry equipment, but also power equipment if needed in the field.

To be fair, the participants we're asked to touch it, not bite it. Very different.

Did that wish motivate you to be more involved with computers than you were?

Did you ever take any steps to turn your wish into reality?

Those early games and (promo) graphics were there to push us forward. To embrace, to learn, and to exceed what was done before us. And we have.

So did you wish, or did you do?

SourceForge has a hard row to hoe in this day of GitHub and BitBucket. That said, it also has deep roots in internet culture. You've taken a big first step, but I'd like to see you all do more.

@whiplash - Turn it into a valid competitor to those two others - it can be a money maker for you, if you can leverage it's history.

I would suggest branching out from that, and go from just source code repo to docker and vagrant repo. Make it a one-stop-shop for getting new projects off the ground. Partner with something like Digital Ocean (if possible) to make it their go to reference.

You've bought a dilapidated property in a hot part of town, revitalize it, and I think you can see it being a cash cow.

Apple beat them to it.