It's a difficult line to walk social justice warrior. At the end of the day it's a fact that religion sets up a psychology that is more positive than the mass psychology of the consumer civilization. That part of religion, a psychology that is resistant to the chaos and disappointment of the world is definitely something that's positive about religion and there are no alternatives in other discourses that are equivalent.
> That part of religion, a psychology that is resistant to the chaos and disappointment of the world is definitely something that's positive about religion and there are no alternatives in other discourses that are equivalent.
Christianity is an the answer to Stoicism. Stoicism has no good news and prescribes suicide if you can't take it any more. Christianity promises Heaven.
The US gov will probably give you some money to fix that and make it available for free.
I had this idea of opening a game studio just for this purpose. To tell stories of politics and wars from an unbiased perspective. Currently most US video games about wars are more or less biased towards the US's view of the world.
Stupidity is supposedly infinite, because intelligence is a very small needle in the search space of good decision making and understanding, the rest of that space is made of stupidity.
What does bluetooth not require support for multiple simultaneous devices. Have more than one device that won't let you connect more than one at a time.
I think it's a bandwidth issue. If I use bluetooth mouse, keyboard, and headphones at the same time, the mouse becomes very sluggish. It works totally fine if I turn off either the keyboard or the headphone.
I had no problem connecting a keyboard and phone (as modem) to a N800 back in the day, while also playing music from the phone to a pair of bluetooth headphones. But that was if i used PAN For the data connection between N800 and phone.
If i used DUN, either the music or the data would occasionally skip.
And that may well be what gives Bluetooth its reputation. So many choices for the various OEMs in terms of protocols/profiles, on top of a more complex air interface (channel hopping).
Given all of it, one may well be better off comparing Bluetooth to USB than wifi. As wifi is Ethernet over a single radio channel.
In theory, the Bluetooth protocol supports up to 7 devices connected simultaneously as slaves to one master device. However in practice, hardware support may be less than this.
Great in theory not so great in reality. I really doubt bash on Windows is going to be all that great and that Linux support is going to be that great either. Microsoft is going to half-ass it because that's not their core competency and it never will be. It's just a shady business tactic to try to win users that are no longer interested in their platform.
> Microsoft is going to half-ass it because that's not their core competency...
Gee, I thought building software for Windows was Microsoft's core competency.
> It's just a shady business tactic...
I suppose then that you must also think that Wine is just some shady "Open Source tactic" to try and get Windows users on Linux?
Maybe you prefer your half-assed software to come from Apple or from the general crowd of Open Source developers. That you have seething hatred for Microsoft is obvious though. Did they kill your pappy?
What is Jewish culture? Jews are as diverse a group as any other group. Jewish culture includes everything from religious nut jobs, to academia, to gay rights, to you name it. Jews are a extremely wide spectrum of opinion. Probably all spectrum of opinion is covered by Jews. So yeah let's preserve that. Let's preserve my Jewish culture, though I am not a Jew I share the same culture of all human opinions.
Media is owned by corporations and the elite. They want freedom of movement, because cheaper labor to exploit and easier to move capital around to make more money. They also want one set of rules and laws and taxes. They also find it much easier to manipulate a single body than multiple bodies. If you want certain policies it's much more effective if you have to buy one government over many different governments.
Elite, the few of them that there are, want one world government that allows them to dictate all the policies and tax the population for things like patents and copyright. They want more power and the way to get that is to get everything under one umbrella... or as few umbrellas as possible. It's easier for them to manage their interests that way than if they have to deal with multiple governments all of which represent potentially different power structures and groups.
Freedom of movement is great, unfortunately we live in a world with 7 billion people and it's likely a vast majority would move from where they are at if they could. 1.3 billion people make less than $1.25 a day. What do you think would happen if they could move somewhere else easily? Equality and economic parity is necessary without creating a humanitarian and environmental disaster of human movement.
I do too, that's where elite interest and interest of modern workers converge and they use that to justify their policies. But often those policies are not good for the locals. Many immigrants do work harder than the locals. Which creates more competition and allows you to exploit the local population better in terms of offering them lower pay and longer hours and fewer benefits. Combine that with automation and you really have too much power in the situation.
Compare Toyota's fine for it's failure to report safety defects to GM's in the GM ignition scandal. I think reasonable minds can conclude that they are both serious, but it is possible to make an argument GM's was more serious, and they paid a lesser fine. Also compare timelines, and the fact that US regulators were pressured by public discourse in the GM case. It's not crazy to come to the conclusion regulators show bias towards US automakers.
It's actually no conspiracy at all that the US government has bias and favors US auto makers in public policy. Afterall, it was not long ago we gave GM a huge welfare check / bail out package. Ford to a lesser extent.
Here's the arguments I can make in 5 minutes of Google searching. My point is just that there's room for debate here (in other words, I'm not saying I am right and you are wrong, what I am saying is that reasonable people can agree there is reasonable debate on this issue).
Argument 1:
Toyota paid 1.2 billion dollars for failure to disclose safety defects linked to 5 deaths. Floor mats in Toyota cars may be linked to up to 34 more deaths. GM had to pay only 900 million for safety defects leading to at minimum 124 deaths, but the real death toll may be much, much higher than that, because as many as 90% of claims are not included in that figure as they are part of an ongoing civil dispute.
Argument 2 (an argument similar to yours that oversimplifies):
Complete loss of control of your car (not even airbags functioning) is less serious than having floor mats in your car?
Argument 3:
Toyota paid 1.2 billion dollars for "having floor mats in their cars" and an extremely rare accelerator sticking issue that was linked to only 5 deaths. GM got off easy on an issue that caused complete loss of control of the car as ignition cut off, and not even the airbags would be deployed in this scenario. GM also internally was aware and discussed this defect for about a decade and did not disclose it.
Argument 4:
Most of the deaths in Toyota's case were linked to floor mats, but how much blame can we reasonable put on floor mats for causing accidents? Is it more or less than putting items on your key chain? Maybe it's not reasonable to assume items on your keychain a safety risk, but manipulating and kicking the floor mats out of their socket holders obviously could interfere with the accelerator pedal.
Edit: I think no matter how you spin it, GM paid probably an order of magnitude less $$/human life than Toyota in these two cases.
My comment was unrelated to how much did each have to pay though.
And it's not "complete loss of control", not to mention airbags are not part of "control of a car". It's "less control" and unlike in Toyota's case, the car doesn't actively do something.
I mean, sure, it's debatable and GM were despicable for not fixing it when they knew about it, but every time I hear about "IgnitionGate", it feels like most people are making out of it a bigger problem than it was.
>My comment was unrelated to how much did each have to pay though.
The topic of my post is about unequal punishment b/w GM/Toyota. If your comment isn't about that then I don't see what the point is in changing the topic and going into a microscopic debate about which safety fault was worse?
If you want to go into these tangential arguments about safety defects, car control, etc. ...my arguments were for illustrative purposes in the first place, but second... you know when the ignition is cut off in modern cars, that would usually mean you can not steer the car, right? That is pretty dangerous.
People watch(ed) TV not for the actual content but just to pass the time. It was mostly channel surfing and once in a while you'd find a show that you wanted to watch all the way through. It was just something to do rather than actually consume a story line. Netflix has made consuming actual stories much much better and easier.
