Shhh! You'll summon APK!
Shhh! You'll summon APK!
whether importing hundreds of thousands of African slaves to toil on Cotton and Tobacco plantations,
History clearly isn't your strong suit. Historically speaking, the Republican Party has been staunchly ANTI-slavery. The Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery activists, and the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, signed into law a little document you may have heard of that addressed the topic of slavery.
It wasn't until well into the 1900s that the Republican Party migrated more to the South and was adopted by the sorts of crowds youre likely thinking of.
Blame the modern Republicans all you want, but get your history right, especially when it comes to accusing people of being pro-slavery.
why one rule for you and another for others ?
Perhaps because Qualcomm (voluntarily) legally bound itself to provide licenses under FRAND terms as a condition for including their patents in the standard? Apple did no such thing.
I'm not saying Apple is in the right here. It actually sounds like they're screwing their suppliers, since their suppliers are the ones who have the licenses from Qualcomm, and it's those suppliers who are withholding royalty payments to Qualcomm on account of Apple not paying the money owed to them to cover their licensing fees. That said, Qualcomm is currently being investigated and/or sued by regulatory agencies around the globe for failing to abide by the FRAND terms they agreed to, so it seems safe to suggest that everyone's in the wrong at this point: Qualcomm for not abiding by its legal obligations, and Apple for not abiding by its contractual obligations.
Or does Congress only have that power when it's something you agree with?
I'm not sure which part of this you think I agree with. I certainly don't agree with what the FCC is doing here.
It sounds as if you're challenging whether Congress even has the authority to create independent agencies in the first place, which is an entirely unrelated discussion, and one for which I don't have a particularly strong opinion (I've just taken it as fact that it's something that they do, without ever really questioning it, honestly). That said, I will point out that if you take issue with Congress delegating its authority to independent agencies, then you'd need to account for the existence of NASA, the Smithsonian, the National Science Foundation, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and even the United States Postal Service, all of which are also independent agencies. Again, I don't have a strong opinion, but there's clearly a necessity that those services be provided in some form or function, and the 538 members of Congress are clearly not up to the task of managing all of that on their own, especially once you consider that most of those agencies are far larger than Congress itself.
Let Congress pass a law [...]
They did. It was the FCC charter. It explicitly gave the FCC the task of and granted them the authority to make decisions about how to classify companies. If Congress wants to pass a law doing what you say, they can, but in the meantime they've said that it is the FCC's job to make those decisions.
For a change of pace, how about we talk about the fact that everything the article had to say about the deregulation was quoted in the summary? I actually read through the article to get more details, but none were to be found.
The rest of the article provides some (quite interesting and informative!) graphs and analysis about the current and future state of energy both globally and in the US. Nowhere in the article did they talk about what form the deregulation would take, when it would start, when Trump approved it, or any of the other salient details you'd expect in an article that was ostensibly about coal deregulation.
I have no reason to doubt that Trump is doing exactly as Bloomberg said, but I'd love to see some information about it, rather than the bait-and-switch they pulled with their lede that has nothing at all to do with the rest of the article. Alternatively, Bloomberg could have just shown me the graphs, since they're good in their own right and shouldn't be buried under a lede that has nothing to do with them.
Which is to say, as you see the comments filling up with people arguing about deregulating coal, enjoy a nice laugh at the fact that they're taking sides based on an article that has nothing to do with the topic they're arguing about.
Abuse? How do you figure?
This is a kickback program, no different than Amazon's affiliate program. Sites attach their referrer ID to links, and when someone following a link buys an app, the referring site gets a kickback (taken from Apple's cut) on each sale. This is a standard business practice, and all Apple is doing here is adjusting the strength of the incentives they're providing, presumably because they no longer see as much value coming from referrals. There's nothing abusive about reducing incentives.
Now, this may be a case of Apple shooting itself in the foot, given that these sorts of affiliate programs generally play a role in drumming up business; dropping the incentive from 7% to 2.5% on each sale will result in fewer sites referring people to their store. But considering Apple had neither a legal nor a moral obligation to set up an incentive program at all, it'd take quite the stretch of the imagination to suggest it's some sort of abuse.
You make a compelling point. I suppose I forget just how stupid people really can be.
If that's a concern, why not just drop any Amazon markings? At that point, the car would be indistinguishable from any other self-driving car on the road. It's possible that self-driving cars in general may become targets, but as another poster has already pointed out, the fact that they're pretty much guaranteed to record the crime in great detail will act as a deterrent for most would-be thieves, I should think.
you gain insight that cannot be quantified or qualified [...] And when it wears off it's back to normal.
Which is a euphemistic way of saying that, whether we're talking subjectively or objectively, you gained absolutely nothing, other than the feeling that you did. An experience that doesn't match up with reality is pretty much the textbook definition of a "delusion", which is exactly what the other AC called the thing you're describing.
As a child, I remember listening to an adult talk about their experience living in a foreign culture for a few years. One of the things this person mentioned was that it was common for the village men to get together, partake of a particular local product, and then "solve the world's problems" while in some sort of altered state. Sadly, the men had yet to devise a method for retaining those solutions after the effects of the product had worn off.
Even as a child, I was keenly aware that what these men were receiving was merely the experience of a revelation, without any of the substance of one, and it left me questioning how anyone could be so silly as to confuse the two, given that one is evidenced by actual change, while the other isn't. Now that I'm an adult, I still ask those same questions every time I hear people suggest that their experience with psychedelics allowed them to do great things that they wouldn't have been capable of otherwise.
I'm fine with the idea that LSD allows people to experience things they wouldn't have otherwise (e.g. an earlier poster talks about the incredibly odd sensation of their brain's hemispheres not acting in a unified manner), but if LSD really was capable of everything that I've heard its users suggest, we'd have already solved world hunger, ended poverty, and abolished war. I'm not exactly holding my breath for the day that LSD leads us to victory in any of those battles.
They also sleep, breathe, eat, and drink fluids about as often as the previous generations did, but you don't see any articles suggesting Millennials breathe an awful lot. Millennials are only flaky inasmuch as they are apparently on par with how flaky previous generations were, yet for some reason the narrative surrounding Millennials is that they are flaky to an extent not seen in previous generations, even though the data doesn't back that up. Why is that?
We like to feel as if we have control of the things surrounding us, and one of the ways that we do that is by putting simple labels on complex subjects in an effort to make sense of them. In many cases, our stereotypes are based on outliers from the group or a bad first impression. Confirmation bias reinforces those stereotypes. Our desire to be right prompts us to ignore evidence to the contrary, particularly when those stereotypes make us feel superior in some way. As if those factors weren't already enough, we then have business models that revolve around pushing salacious narratives, such as clickbait journalism that thrives on pandering to the lowest common denominator in order to generate the most pageviews.
Around and around all of this spins, perpetuating stereotypes that have little or no basis in reality.
Mind you, I'm someone who has been at his current place of employment for over 5 years...despite being labeled as "Gen X", "Gen Y", and "Millennial" since my birth 33 years ago. The fact that they can't even figure out what to label me should tell you that the labels are imprecise at best. And, to say the least, I wouldn't suggest holding your breath for me to begin embracing the "gig economy", feeling entitled to have anything I want with no effort, or burying my face in my phone to the exclusion of the people around me, despite the notion that those are the traits that define everyone in my (currently assigned) generation.
Maybe, just maybe, I'll keep being the person I am, just like most everyone else, regardless of what inaccurate stereotypes others--such as yourself--insist on applying to us.
That's because the headline is some of the worst sensationalistic tabloid journalism level garbage I've ever read. They did not observe "negative mass". They created a system wherein, under specific circumstances, part of the system behaved as if it mathematically had negative mass.
Thanks for the clarification. While they may not have created actual negative mass, it's good to know that they've created something that the public will confuse for the real thing, since if there's one question I love hearing over and over again, it's "When will we have Jetsons-style flying cars and hoverboards?".
at least 40 definitions for the word free
in the dictionary,
no one elses
fault or problem you
fucking stupid to remember more than one
Sorry, why were you saying he was stupid? I was a bit distracted.
I agree. I think I was slightly miffed at the previous poster as well, hence the play-by-play, but I did spend more time on that post than necessary. And I do agree that language is a living thing. I think there's a balance to be had between prescriptivism and descriptivism. As a rule, I err on the side of trying to use things as prescribed, while at the same time trying to practice patience and tolerance towards those whose notion of language is a bit more...fluid.
1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.