Potando

The newspaper used to cost $1 (each! every day!) and it was full of ads. Probably about as much percentage of area as a typical news site today.

There must be a balance between "no payment" and "no ads" - the optimum profit doesn't necessarily happen at one of the extremes. Do you think you'd choose a higher priced subscription if it offered no ads?

What's wrong with clicking on an unknown link? It can only hurt you by taking advantage of an unpatched security bug in your software. But if you have that, you might be vulnerable doing all sorts of other things on the internet. And you probably do have that and are vulnerable doing all sorts of other things. It's just not very likely to hurt you in either case.

This is a paradox of runners and cyclists too. They use high-tech gear to make running easier - easier than a naked human can do it - but they refuse powered assistance. I don't understand why they make such a clear distinction between using gadgets to save power and using gadgets to provide more power. If it's about natural un-assisted ability, they shouldn't wear shoes either.

By bad luck he happened to be the same person who also did something legal that they really didn't like and also something illegal. So his legal actions have caused an excessive sentence for the relatively minor crimes he was actually convicted of.

If embarrassing people was a crime, the ex-partners who gave him the photos would be charged too. Those people are even more at fault than him.

Sounds like if you pay Cryptolocker to recover your files then you can have you money frozen too. Perhaps this is a good incentive to stop people paying extortionists.

If true, this also shows the TRUSTe privacy seal is worthless. The name implies it's undergone some kind of assessment that showed it's good for privacy when just looking at an encrypted file would immediately show the problem. TRUSTe itself is a bit vague on what they really do.

https://www.truste.com/business-products/dpm-services/#pCert

I can't find NQ in their search tool for certified companies. Perhaps it's been retracted or was never really issued? Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place

https://www.truste.com/consumer-resources/trusted-directory/

There certainly are. Iphones smuggled into mainland form Hong Kong are sold at a premium. Whatever the reasons for that are among the conditions that Apple must have conceded to to sell legally in the mainland.

Actually, yes. Any water shortage in a developed area with cheap water isn't actually a water shortage, it's a mismanagement or incorrect pricing. California can simply produce more water if they really need it, which they would if everyone was leaving their taps on.

We're fooled into believing water shortages are environmental problems we need to make sacrafices to prevent. But just paying more for more expensive, higher volume production or recylcing would work too. Eg Isreal.

Not stupid, but they either didn't understand or relied on the placebo effect and didn't perform experiments that were actually useful at distinguishing helpful from harmful or useless medicines - AND communicate that information to others. When an ancient remedy turns out to be useful, it's not useful until we rediscover that it actually works. The idea of science and sorting out mysticism from reality is fairly new in most of the world. In China, doctors in public hospitals still prescribe untested herbal remedies and diagnose diseases without any idea of the effectiveness of what they're doing. Patients just trust authority, tradition and popular belief. You could argue that the same is true to some extent in the west today too - see general "have some antibiotics" prescriptions, and cough and cold medicine.

What sexualities do you think he's talking about? Surely not all of them. But he doesn't explicitly say which groups, if any, he supports discrimination against.

Do you mean poorly thought out or just different opinions? If the latter, perhaps you can show why you disagree?

He seems to mainly be talking about discrimination against gays, though doesn't say it directly. I wonder if he really means it that Apple won't discriminate against pedophiles, incestuous couples or the grey areas on the boundaries of age of consent? Or is it like the old "universal suffrage" that turned out only to be universal to men, and not women?

Did you just say that immigration is harmful because workers get most of the benefit and property owners relatively little? This economic perspective seems to be only looking at the economy of one group of people.

People at the lower end of the labor market are also adversely affected by each other. Why are they not proposing deportation of low-skilled Americans? No justification seems to escape from the fact that anti-immigration is fundamentally just discriminatory tribalism no different from racism and homophobia like the OP's father had.

"Logically, if immigrants were “stealing” jobs, so would every young person leaving school and entering the job market"

It's bizarre that people don't see this. Anyone concerned about immigrants is surely, logically, also concerned about people having babies. But somehow people think that limiting birthrates as a bad thing and limiting immigration is a good thing. Just a complete inconsistency.

These articles appear from time to time but they never give any sensible reason. Just take it as given that languages must be saved. This one has a long diversion into indigenous medicine - not something that needs a language, but rather needs knowledge, using any language. Here's the closest thing I found to a reason though I only read half way:

"But the loss of languages passed down for millennia, along with their unique arts and cosmologies, may have consequences that won’t be understood until it is too late to reverse them."

This just means the last speakers are hoping to pass their insecurity problem on to another group of new "last speakers" to suffer it for them. Nothing against an individual having that desire, but for a 3rd party to help them, it's really doing any overall good. It's just moving the problem to somebody else.

Sounds like your problem is drug users/dealers, not people with mobile homes. I hope you wouldn't also want to push out the good ones who aren't causing problems. You can just consider that you now live in a bad neighborhood. Some people have this from their permanent house neighbors too.

They nest inside each other as the picture shows. This is clearly a low-labour product. Though I think if you have a lot of people needing a house, there's already a pool of excess labor available.

A surprising fact about wood is that large-section wooden beams can perform better in a fire when there's a lot of flammable material around. They burn slowly from the outside so they take a long time to fail, making it safer for firemen to walk around inside. In comparison, steel fails by softening and that can happen much faster just by conducting heat through the whole section.

Bricks are a problem in earthquake prone regions. Even brick cladding on wooden frames tends to fall off and hit people on the head.

Really? Isn't speed limited by the amount of light that can be received in a small lens like on a phone?

There have been some fairly monstrous cases of unions crippling their industries (printers, watersiders). I think that might have put some people off the idea. Not to say all unions are that broken but it seems that sometimes they grow too big.

It's one thing to negotiate for more pay, but when you actively seek to prevent technological improvements which might make your job redundant, that makes you a burden on the rest of society.

Doesn't it strike you as weird that there's a concept of "jobs moving overseas"? And that it's usually presented as a bad thing? Somehow even apparently reasonable people still have these blatantly discriminatory tribal attitudes and don't stop to see how unjust they are.

Back in history, white railway workers in America were unhappy about jobs going to Chinese immigrants. We even still have that but with Indians and call them "H1B"s which hides the racist undertones. Yet I've never heard anybody complain about "jobs going to local youths". Somehow a baby born near our house seems to be treated as a more deserving human being than one born somewhere else.

When jobs move overseas, that's usually a good thing, we should celebrate it! It means people overseas are getting more jobs! Very often those are even the same people most in need of more jobs so it's win-win.

Talking about committing a crime isn't thoughtcrime. It's perhaps better called a "speechcrime". It's already illegal for all sorts of things. Conspiracy of course is one way. There's also incitement and threats, as well as "intent". That last one is more of a true thoughtcrime. The real world effect of manslaughter is the same as murder, but the distinction lies with what the person was thinking.

Traditional conservative values are relative. Western women are forbidden from going topless in public even though men are allowed. They also can't show their pubic hair but can show their head hair. The differences seem kind of arbitrary.

Pedophilia as a sexuality is harmless. It's only a desire. We shouldn't assume all pedophiles have had sex with children. Probably the vast majority haven't.

Consent isn't so meaningful when it comes to animals. Females of some species don't consent - they're forced to have sex by the males of their own species (walrusses I think). So clearly consent isn't actually something we require from animals. As Lawton said, we do far worse things than rape. We torture dogs by locking them in solitary confinement for most of their life. We of course kill animals just for fun. It's hard to imagine that rape (assuming you can't measure consent somehow) can be worse than psychological torture and murder combined.

Harm to children isn't why we don't like incest, otherwise we'd be banning people with even minor genetic problems from having children (heart disease risk, low IQ, etc). We don't like incest because it's a weird sexual deviancy which repulses us just like homosexuality does to many people.

Not quite. I was trying to show that even today we're not very enlightened by comparing blacks with pedophiles. These are both groups of people who have been seen as "inferior" and "acceptable to abuse" simply for existing, rather than for causing harm.

It seems clear cut now when we grow up being told "everyone is equal", but that's because we have the luxury of seeing all moderns humans as a single species with no close living relatives. How would we classify Neanderthals if we found them alive today? How far removed from "our own race" do you have to go before something isn't a human? How about someone with a different number of chromosomes such as a Down's syndrome patient?

I think the real problem isn't classifying animals - aborigines really do have a different genetic history from every other race. It's that we somehow equate "not properly human" with "deserves to be abused". Until we can escape from that mentality, we're really no better than these zoo keepers. We've just moved the threshold a bit.

You only have to look at the present to see that we aren't properly enlightened yet. Look at the range of sexualities that are still criminalized: pedophilia, bestiality, incest. We make a show of being accepting of homosexuality, but it's a farce when we realize that we only accept it because it's been repeatedly promoted by bold members of that group willing to risk it all in an attempt to change society. People (in the UK at least) are still being imprisoned for having consensual sex with their adult relatives. It's still a common fear that pedophiles shouldn't be left alone with children in case they rape them. Much like the fear of homosexual men was 50-odd years ago (turns out not all gays are rapists after all). Farmers regularly rape animals for profit, but if they do it for pleasure, it's a crime.

Predatory pricing doesn't benefit consumers overall, so if I'm most interested in their wellbeing, I don't think it's an OK thing.

If you consider the purpose of industry as being to make sellers rich, then yes. But if the purpose is to make consumers better off overall, then no, he's not being a jerk at all. The guy who produces software too inefficiently to compete with the free one shouldn't be subsidized by all the users. I am that guy, I do worry about open source software encroaching on my niche. But I don't blame the authors for stealing my customers!