Yes, more sponsored free data transfer and optimization from content providers. It's a grey area now. But "Stream Game of Thrones now without using your data, exclusively on AT&T" is something that carriers and content providers really want to do.
I have never had any issues using bluetooth headphones while my Android watch is connected. Not once.
I also haven't had issues with interaction with "wifi-rich" environments, and I live in a 26 story building with dozens of WIFI networks.
The battery life issue is entirely dependent on what model of headset you have. I did the research, and got a set that lasts a good long while.
I'm not saying that I agree with the removal of the jack, but your arguments don't apply to any environment I've encountered in recent years.
6 years or so, Bluetooth was far more dodgy, and didn't provide sufficient quality for music anyway.
It's an anti-theft feature marketed as such. The only "privacy" that was violated here was that of the theif. And fuck him.
You're saying that the value of a job isn't as important of the purchasing power created from its wages. And as I said, I generally agree that we have more purchasing power. You don't need to justify that point any further or defend it with an Economics 101 lesson. (While I'm not an economist, I am a mathematician, who, as such, is inclined to tell you that "you and ten people" is eleven people total, though your math indicates a labor pool of ten. Try not to fail mathematics when you argue mathematics.) Arguing about purchasing power being up when median income isn't is like a patient telling his doctor that he's not worried about his cholesterol levels because he exercises everyday and feels fit. In both cases, there are indications that things aren't as healthy as they seem.
I disagree that purchasing power alone, apart from job value, is the only metric worth evaluating. And you already gave the reason why: The existence of capital induces demand for products, which induces a demand for labor. Median income measures the strength salaries have to pay for products and services, which induces job creation. It matters significantly. So when lower-wage jobs replace higher-pay jobs*, when existing jobs producing the same product pay less to laborers, and when jobs move to overseas markets where labor is cheaper, less demand for labor is induced. Less demand for labor creates less demand for work, restricting access to capital among laborers, which restricts their access to goods and services, decreasing quality of life. All this happens, even if our purchasing power has risen relative to median income.
Also, I found your labor force statistics fascinating. Honestly. Though I'd like to know their source.
Finally, I don't disagree people want security, but they want it through a job. People find value in work. If you don't believe me, visit with some blue-collar workers, and listen to Mike Rowe's take on it.
* For example, manufacturing jobs are down, while Leisure and Hospitality jobs are up. It doesn't take an economist to tell you that they don't pay the same. And this is happening in labor pools across the country.
I was enjoying your perspective and your argument, up to the insult at the end. Too bad you had to discredit yourself with it.
Yes, many goods and services have gotten cheaper, though you omit the fact that others, including post-secondary education and health care costs, have risen sharply relative to inflation. And I generally accept your argument that purchasing power has steadily increased. Your summary of my argument was partially incorrect; I never said purchasing power has gone down.
I also don't understand why you think the clause "Someone else has told me" is important enough to bold it. These are economic figures from established agencies for which I have reasoned a valid point: If the value of production goes up this country, why doesn't median income? What people are able to do with the money they earn is irrelevant to the discussion, and only distracts from it.
You are just one drop of water in the ocean of our economy, and using yourself as an example to assert the strength of our national economy is not a valid metric. While you and I* may be doing well enough financially, many people aren't. It's those people that elected Trump to the presidency, and it's those people that currently have the strongest and most determined voice in our country. They're not earning $75,000. They're begging for jobs that would earn them even half that, but those jobs are disappearing. They don't want handouts. They just want a good day's salary for a hard day's labor. There are many reasons for why that's unobtainable, though one of them is that consumers like you and me have demanded with our dollars that prices for goods and services get cheaper, which have driven many of these production jobs overseas to cheaper labor markers.
* Congratulations on your good fortune. I'm earning $65,000 a year and also diverting a lot of money to debt elimination, including student loans, hospital bills for a child, and car payments. No "hot tubs and hookers", as you put it. I don't actually recall complaining in my post that I'm spending all my money and wishing I had more. I'm rather comfortable where I'm at; more would allow me to pay debts faster, save more, and enjoy more, but it's nothing that I envy.
But I also think it's important to include the value of the jobs that have been created. And for that, I turn to these metrics:
Median household income, which tells us that Americans have not been earning any more money than they had been earning a decade ago.
GDP per capita, which tells us that the value of what the average American has been producing has been rising steadily (adjusted for inflation) since 2009.
So, unemployment is nearly half what it was when Obama took office, but people aren't earning any more, despite them producing more. Begs the question...who's pocketing all that extra money?
He suffered a refresh circuitry failure.
You can't change a person's ideologies by imprisoning them
Yes you can. Just you watch how that man thinks when he gets out in two years.
> I like the idea of running tor an a separate VM from the one you do your browsing on.
It is a proxy and most of the attack vectors attack the end client, not the network itself.... the tor client needs internet access, the client behind it can only harm itself with direct acces.... so don't give it...not even dns, nothing. Just port 9050 alone and only one responding IP.
Maybe drop another interface on there and log all the non-port 9050 traffic as well
They have an AI so advanced it is capable of being offended? That is amazing.
Now if only they could develop one mature enough to be offended and yet remain objective enough to realize that it own opinion wasn't anything anyone asked for or cared about.
That is not the very least. That is a whole bunch of extra work when entire distributions exist just to obviate the need for this. Take a look at tails.
It is, of course, recommended to put it on a usb stick and clean boot hardware off the stick to use it; however, there is nothing stopping you from bringing it up in a VM if you are ok with the trade offs.
Accomplishes the same thing, for less work, and with a much larger already setup base which will be identical to other users, in ways that increase the work of differentiating you from other users.
also, it is possible to jail an environment better.... What you really want on you VM is to jail it onto a network segment with no gateway where its only connection to the outside world is a tor client on a second VM.
Which i care enough to state, not enough to even setup for myself. I have a few tails sticks for the few things I really need a secure environment for....so far that means mostly for times I want to drop off the network entirely in order to work with key generation.
AngelHunt? Sounds like the name of a pedo website...
> different psychotropic drugs, many of which I found out later have studies showing that they are less effective than a placebo (but slightly more effective than the previous class of useless drugs).
And yet, nobody had any qualms about prescribing them and charging insurance or taking your money for them. Less effective than placebo....that is really fucking something.
More than that, even if you are not trying to do bad science, there is always incentive to report bad science. I saw a great example myself a while back, big headline about marijuana use increasing the risk of heart attack.....as a pot smoker I was concerned, so I dig in....
First, it wasn't the main point of the study. Pot smokers made up a small portion of their study population. The overall study was good.
So out of a study of many hundreds, the big headline was on a small sub-population of somewhere around 20 people. The main metric they used was how many hours it had been since a person last smoked.... 24 hours being the lowest.
So basically.... a small number of pot smokers who had heart attacks before and had new ones, had them within 24 hours of smoking pot. Totally disregarding that if they had another heart attack at all, the likelyhood of it being within 24 hours of smoking was high, even if there is no connection.
It wasn't even a large difference, it was a small anomaly from a small population.
In the end, the result wasn't worth reporting, much less a headline, but reporting it like they did got their names int he paper and a big national headline.
1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.