1,595 karma · joined April 2, 2012
What is particularly interesting is that Hannity is now beating everyone else in ratings and he is probably the most unapologetic Trump supporter.
Seems like people punish media that is pushing HRC.
The charger offers 87W because it is meant to be able to provide enough power to charge the battery while the CPU/GPU/external devices run at 100%.
The worst you are going to experience with 60W while everything is running at 100% is that the battery isn't charging or charging very slow.
You can connect a single USB-C port to a monitor that has a USB-C video in. This monitor will then charge your Macbook and on top of that if the monitor has a built in USB hub it will also do that.
Or if your monitor doesn't support this then you can buy a dock/hub to which you connect your charger, monitors etc and the Mac with one cable.
For me personally that's what I've been missing most since I switched from Lenovo to Macs a few years ago - a docking station. For me plugging in only a single cable is as good as that.
Yes you can install Linux, but I'm not going to pay a premium price to then spend my time hunting down the correct drivers and in the end still have some hardware not supported.
Either all of the hardware that I paid for is fully supported by some Linux distribution and on top of that I don't have to lift a finger to keep it updated or I'm not buying at that price.
I pay and you solve my problems, not I pay and you deliver me a bunch of new problems that I'll have to tinker with.
That's really why I switched to Mac's. I'm also not terribly convinced by the new touchpad, but maybe it'll grow on me.
Human advancement on every level is not driven by greed, but by rational self interest. Self interest is a necessary precondition for improving anything, otherwise what's the motivation to build for example a nice house if I don't care about the better life quality that I'll have living in it? Greed is just a subjective or collective way to say that someones self interest goes far beyond what is considered productive and rational. (if you p--- everyone off with inflated self interest you will likely have a problem rather sooner than later)
Just compare the improvements that societies made which didn't allow or limit direct self interest as the primary motivation for economic activity to those that did. There's just no doubt that life in Socialist countries was in almost every case much worse and it is even today. (USSR, pre Capitalist China, North Korea, Nazi Germany, Venezuela, Cuba and so on)
> Google and the NY Times refused the Chinese government's proposals and were kicked out of that market.
You are omitting that I wrote "significant advantage over the competition". I doubt China would _ever_ tolerate officials rigging its system in order for the NY Times to have a significant advantage over its national mainstream media. Or Google over Baidu. Most likely these companies do not even have a chance at competing with local Chinese companies anyway. An average Chinese person might desire to use an iPhone with Chinese apps on it, but reading the NY Times, c'mon.
> I don't see how limiting government power to regulate large businesses will help; it will shift power to the large businesses, worsening the situation. I don't think Google and Facebook's success is due to government rigging the market, nor do I think their influence will now diminish if government regulatory power is reduced.
I do not say that Google's and Facebook's success is due to bribing politicians, this is most certainly wrong. But large corporations do it after reaching a certain size in order to ensure that they will be able to maintain it into the future.
There would be no need to ever bribe a politician if these corporations were fully confident that they could stay dominant in the market and beat new competition. The mere fact that corporations decide to do this shows that it is often more efficient to spend resources on suppressing competition via government power than using it to innovate and improve products and services.
Who looses in all of this? The consumer (more expensive, lower quality products), the worker (lower incomes) and anyone who wants to build his own company. (high entry barriers to the market resulting in a static class of elites with less upward mobility)
Again, look at markets where government directly owned or ran almost all businesses. What was the result for the average person? How competitive were the products? These countries usually allowed and desired to export while suppressing imports, but for some reason all the Capitalist societies wanted to buy was natural resources, not finished products. Buy Soviet Lada cars? Who would have bought that when there's Mercedes, Audi, BMW, VW and so on? (I'm in a German country so that's what we drive here)
Of course there were a few cases were largely Socialist countries did work, but these were to my knowledge always edge cases where they for example have a very small population and enormous natural resources (like oil)
> Libertarian/Objectivist ideology
Yes, something along these lines. I desire to live in a society that offers as many freedom to every one of its members as possible, though I recognise that there must be limits too. The Socialist on the other hand wants to mold society in some way or another in order to achieve or reach some kind of higher or better form of society. This is always done by the use of force and I reject that. If you try to convince me to better myself - fine, but passing laws that threaten fines (robbing me of my resources) or prison is not okay with me.
This is what _every_ business would do and actually does when it is offered a significant advantage over all potential competitors in the market. That's what lobbying is all about. Large corporations pay politicians so they create laws in order to suppress competition.
Everyone loves free markets as a consumer, but a business is never interested in the kind of competition that could put it out of existence, its employees fired and leave its founders bankrupt.
The solution here is not to create new regulations which make it even harder to do business than it already is, or to enact laws that make this kind of bribery illegal (it would continue no matter what you do) but to impose serious limitations on government power so it can't rig the system for a handful of powerful corporations that can afford engaging in this kind of bribery.
This is seen in the current US election where all except for Facebook quite overtly try to suppress the conservative viewpoint.
But my big issue with what she is stating (aside from the refugee invite to the EU) is that she wants governments to control what kind of message is put out.
With private control and ownership we still have at least some media that presents an alternative viewpoint to the current left leaning mainstream. (I'm talking about big corporations)
With government control it could easily be 100% percent biased in one direction. It's bad enough already but this would be even worse.
Is it about the fact that they didn't announce it company wide that they are going to lay off 443 employees over the course of year? I mean they have 38,400 employees according to Wikipedia.
But when arguing from a principled position that views freedom as the highest value one can possess it is very hard to come up with a consistent and valid argument why private persons should not be allowed to rent out their property in the same way that "legal" hotels do.
Safety regulations are often cited but why shouldn't a place be good enough for a guest while it is good enough for local people living there? And why should a guest not be able to decide for him or herself if it's acceptable to stay there? (with Airbnb you'll actually get a much nicer place for the same money, especially in NY "legal" hotel owners got away with charging $250 for flea infested 2 star s* holes due to low competition)
Then there's the argument that properties rented out at Airbnb are generally advertised as great for parties. This is not true, anyone who has used this platform will know that these people offering their place go to great lengths to ensure that their guests wont do that. And even if they did, there are ways for neighbours to get reparations for damages, both from the guests (the law of the land applies to them too!) and the person renting out the place.
To me all of this sounds like politicians who are in the pocket of a certain industry ruling in favour of the same industry. This is similar to what is happening to Uber.
One thing is for sure: By suppressing competition in this way the government effectively creates an Aristocracy where everything is rigged against the average person.
Another angle to look at this issue: If you can't use your property in a way that doesn't harm anyone, like renting it to someone, is it then still _your_ property?
Mouse and Keyboard will be Bluetooth which I already use and that works well for me.
Regarding pendrives: I'll need to buy a new one, that sucks obviously, but I also have to say that I almost never used them although I bought an expensive one from Corsair just in case. In most cases I just used Google Drive to make that data available on all of my devices.
Yeah, for the small countries that have no influence whatsoever. Sweden once also was a great country (I doubt you would have complained back then) but it overextended in its wars and got basically castrated by the Russian Empire.
I believe you have other problems in Sweden right now after your men allowed your country to be invaded.
Well, it states it is a national security / foreign trade issue which I feel is accurate regarding Brexit. I don't view it as racist to not allow foreigners to influence the government on national security issues since the UK is a sovereign country that has interests which clearly conflict with the interests of many EU countries.
Most Western countries have laws to prevent that from happening, including the US. (even accepting foreign donations for election campaigns is limited or forbidden in some cases)
Okay this is really bad, in the EU country where I live you usually first negotiate and sign the contract, then start working.
But the drawback is that it is really just done this way because the government requires that the business notifies it about your employment before you start working, which is a privacy issue.
I think I'd still prefer it the US way. I'd ask about this before starting to work. (if this isn't a no go)
On one hand everyone is free to trade freedoms for gains (usually monetary - every contract restricts both parties freedom), but on the other hand you can't trade certain freedoms away that we view as fundamental.
Even though I am certainly no proponent of non-compete agreements I cautiously tend towards viewing such contracts as acceptable and valid.
You usually do limit selling your services already the moment you accept a position as an employee, at least for the time you stay employed there. Contractually expanding it for a mutually agreed upon period doesn't strike me as that much different, at least as long as there was no coercion involved and both sides fully understood the consequences.
If they removed that it would be absolutely crazy because most people who use MacBooks for productive work require the Function keys.
I can only imagine what kind of horrible software they shipped with this thing to control it.
With Apples implementation I at least expect the OS and software implementation to be easy to use even though I'm still not sold on the idea itself.
Edit: The USB-C ports are actually a great feature for me, I plan to buy a monitor with USB-C that can both act as an USB hub, charge the Macbook and use the USB-C cable to receive the video data. (all by using a single cable)
I'll then have one of these monitors both at home and in the office.
Essentially yes, though I don't mean to say that some religion or some culture in the sense of history, music, food and arts is lesser than others. All I'm saying is that some cultures strongly reinforce certain qualities that help children being successful. I'm not a Jew or an Asian, but I do try to learn what is useful about these cultures so I can apply it myself.
> If your parents don't know elite cultural norms and your schoolmates don't know elite cultural norms, then how exactly is a child supposed to learn elite accents and elite cultural norms?
I did exactly that which you seem to believe is impossible or very hard. I'm from a immigrant family that started with nothing in a western EU country and I became part of the top 1%.
What I can tell you about my experience is that I did not know the elite accents but some universal qualities like strong discipline (I never did any kind of drug), dedication to work hard and the wish to compete (I'm not the kind of guy that uses his elbows to get in front) were reinforced by my parents. I also tried (not always successful) to keep away from people who act destructive or totally lack focus in life.
Now about the part with the struggling parents and hungry children:
First of all I believe it is an extreme exaggeration to say that half the children need to starve, I actually believe that no child needs to starve in the US or go to school hungry.
All kinds of welfare institutions are in place that would prevent that from happening. But we still both know that it does happen, even though everyone gets the necessary resources from the government to prevent that from happening. (at least here in the EU)
I'm willing to bet that in most cases it is caused by bad decisions of the parents. Decisions like abusing alcohol, drugs or wasting money. (gambling, buying products they can't afford)
The question is if it is even possible to prevent this from happening, even if you expand the welfare state. I doubt it. I believe this issue will always exist as there'll always be people that make lots of very bad decisions because they have the freedom to do so. (I assume you don't want to take everyones freedom in the process of achieving equal outcomes)
On the other hand the welfare state incentivises those who are dependant to stay dependant (a job would have to be really well paid to offset the tax punishment and very safe as well because if they are fired early they will often disqualify for welfare payments for a few months - could be fatal for many) and this situation also wears these people mentally down and causes divorces, which leads to a further breakdown of society as a whole. (see divorce rate today - or see birth rates in the EU which is in the process of going full Socialist)
And then there are tons of regulations that make it very expensive to hire someone for businesses (minimum wage, bureaucratic red tape) which further worsens the situation for poor people. A hundred years ago anyone with two arms and two legs could find a job in the US, even if it was only day - to - day. We certainly do not want that everyone stays in low pay jobs, but starting doing _something_ would change the life of most persons who are dependant on welfare today. Chances are they'd learn new skills and become more valuable as an employee over time and it would on top of that improve their sense of being in control of their own life.
But the way it is now you can't ever find a job if you have no skills whatsoever. How could a business pay an Afghan guy who barely speaks English the government mandated $15 minimum wage without going broke? The business wont and the Afghan guy will stay dependant and will have to live in a depressing situation.
If you are interested I can recommend the Milton Friedman series "Free to Choose" (from the 1980s), in specific Part 5 which is all about the welfare state:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRLAKD-Vuvk
Even if you reject his ideas I feel there's a great debate after the first 30 minutes with great persons representing each side of the argument.
I doubt it makes sense for me to engage in a discussion with you.
And the most you could do with this Article is take the UK's voting rights.
I'm sure the UK can come up with ways to punish the EU into submission without breaching any laws. (5% tax would be legal) Also how about vetoing almost everything. That's a political tool that has shown to be very effective for centuries.
Either way you slice it, if the UK wants access to the market at advantageous terms she will get it. The question is only how much does she want it.
> It's a perfectly rigid and self-sustaining caste system.
The problem with your statement is that all 3 qualities you have listed could actually be acquired at the cost of $0, either by the parents raising their children differently or by the child itself if it desires so.
Therefore I can't agree that it is anything resembling a caste system. (in such systems there'd be use of force for anyone who steps out of line)
The only way that I see how you could argue that these examples prove that it's a caste system is if you denied that there is free will. Yes, if there's no free will then we only react predictably to the environment like mindless machines so being unable to put your children into private schools will cause them to be poor if they don't have some amazing genetical quality that allows them to transcend the competition.
I strongly oppose this line of thinking. Why? Because it leads to Nihilism and a sense that everything (including your own life) is worthless. It would also allow you to do whatever you want without following any moral code if you take this philosophy to its logical extreme.
Edit: What I mean by that is that it's not like parents do not have choices, no matter how poor. They can teach their kids moral values and discipline, they can encourage them to do something useful with their lives. And the child also can do something about its situation once it gets older.
The economist Thomas Sowell made the very strong argument in one of his books that it is actually culture (= set of all social norms and rules) that determines success of a group. For example some Asian cultures or Jews have always been highly successful, no matter where they immigrated to and no matter how much they were persecuted. In case of the Jews they've faced unequal treatment and persecution for thousands of years.
So what makes them able to overcome all odds? They raise their children with certain values (I doubt its the religious values) that make them (on average) outcompete the children of all others.
So it doesn't matter that much if I'm poor, if I'm rich or what skin color I happen to be born with. If I'm white and from the upper class and decide to use the N word in every other sentence, dress like a Gangsta Rapper with pants down to my knees and have no discipline or work ethic then I'm likely going to fail hard in life. If I'm black and decide to learn how to speak eloquently and dress well then I might become the US president.
She could for example say the EU is not cooperative, the UK will stay for the next 5 years and lower taxes for foreign investments to 5% like Malta does. That would hurt the EU a lot and I bet they'd be more open for discussions after that. If not then continue with other creative ideas, the EU can't survive a remaining UK that is actively working towards hurting the EU. (the EU probably will not be able to survive anyway the way things stand right now)
From a moral perspective you couldn't even argue that it's immoral if the UK did this as highest EU officials have publicly proclaimed that they will make the UK suffer so it'll be an example for others.
No right winger alive today holds Bismarck or the original right wingers in French monarchy as his ideal. I see that people often cite this but I'm really mystified why they do as it adds nothing to the discussion.
Maybe you hope to convince others to like the welfare state because Bismarck did too?
> Meanwhile the Tories under Theresa May are doing her best to tear down the UK welfare sector.
Her attempts are very weak for a right winger.
> I don't know from where you got the idea she wants to expand government.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/05/no-prime-mini...
A right winger would not want to expand an already bloated government to direct even more of the economy, that just doesn't make sense.
Well but sorry, you are wrong here. The Irish selectively made deals with companies, that was ruled illegal. Not having low taxes, which works great in case of Malta. (5% tax for foreign investors)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/leesheppard/2016/09/05/the-eu-ca...
> Last but not least, the EU could just take the stance that the continued announcements of the legal government to invoke article 50 constitute sufficient grounds to start the proceedings.
I suspect more countries would leave the EU if it did something highly illegal like that, but can't be ruled out. The EU is like the Soviet Union so criminality is part of its nature.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/05/no-prime-mini...
Theresa May could have done all kinds of things to force favourable Brexit terms for the UK.
For example she could continuously lower corporate taxes for foreign investment for while not activating Article 50 and simply wait until it really hurts the EU. If the EU doesn't give in the UK continues to wait and makes a lot of money in the process, if it does then the UK also wins.
I suspect that the UK's prime minister actually wants to tank the economy to do another Brexit vote. (the EU loves this, just repeat until you get the desired result - that's one of the reasons why the EU will fail)
She really wants to join her friends at the Soviet High Command in Brussels again.
I live in a German speaking country and the people here who still follow this ideology are frequently into the same insane mysticism. Of that I'm 100% sure because I've seen it quite often.