differentView

All I know at this point is that I'll keep using Hangouts and when Google eventually kills it, I'll never use another Google messenger again.

> I'm going to start looking for another e-tailer to use.

What alternatives are there that don't have the same problem?

> male counterparts (who are generally guaranteed government sinecures) > These countries risk not only of losing their women; if they do not mend their ways, they will lose the most productive half of their populations.

Sounds like they're also losing the potentials of many of their male population with such guaranteed government sinecures.

Does the term exclude all non-whites/Asians, regardless of upbringing, education, and background?

It's one thing to support laws and regulations that happen to benefit Trump, it's another to want him to be the leader of your country.

There needs to be countdown timers on all traffic lights.

I suspect many people who claim to be libertarians just haven't discovered classical liberalism.

> Police are not asking for the entire search history of everyone in the town, then combing through it to see what they've searched for. Rather, police are asking Google who, in a narrow amount of time, searched for the name of a relatively unknown person who had $28K stolen from him.

Where would you draw the line?

Suppose they don't find what they're looking for in that request. Would you be okay with them expanding the time little by little? Perhaps adding other search terms? What about for other crimes? Other services (Facebook, Bing, Yahoo!, etc...)?

Wouldn't capable prosecutors for future cases simply use this as precedent and expand the parameters little by little?

There is no clear line to draw after you cross this line.

I prefer Bill Cosby having no access to any drugs.

Him being an asshole would be a lot better than what his real self turned out to be.

Even if not random, there's an argument that Alice would bring happiness to more people.

>As an easy example, there are many that are more overweight than I am that know nutrition better than I do. That said, it is does seem somewhat logical to question health advice from clearly unhealthy people.

Using your easy example with OP's logic, a 100-pound overweight person trying to lose 100 pounds by throwing up and taking dangerous diet pills should also discount the advice of a physician who've never lost 100 pounds themselves or successfully helped a patient lose at least 100 pounds.

Should artists be exempted from the basic requirement of being able to support themselves that we expect from people of other professions?

>No one is trying to stop legal immigration.

I'll give you the benefit of doubt and believe that YOU are not trying to stop legal immigration. However, many are trying to stop immigration, some are against all immigration, some are against only those of a certain religion.

Don't most people just go along with it and say "I have nothing to hide".

How would you know if it's cp?

But I enjoy going to Costco.

What's the worst he's done?

> this is a deep breech of trust in a non-public company

How so? Senior leaders at Uber seeking "advice on a variety of issues, mostly pertaining to diversity and inclusion" isn't a bad thing.

Clarifying that Travis Kalanick, the CEO, wasn't one of those senior leaders, doesn't breach anyone's trust.

From the article:

>In 1996, Republican Rep. Jay Dickey removed $2.6 million from the CDC budget — the precise amount the CDC spent on gun research in 1995 — at a time when the center was conducting more studies into gun-related deaths as a "public health phenomenon," according to The New York Times. The NRA and some pro-gun Congressmen perceived this as more of an attack.

This isn't fake news.

Smart people, and people in general, are more productive doing what they're passionate about. Buffett on investing, Musk on space, and Gates on curing childhood diseases.

Are these people without jobs that eat dinner at 5pm? Most people I know are still at work at 5pm.

Depends how much the border officer likes you.

Yes, those people will simply be denied entry.

First, you and your devices will be held for hours while they go through your accounts and devices. Then they'll require you to disable 2FA.

It absolutely is not ridiculous on Google's part.

You're making some other point.

When a tweet is reported on the TV news, people only see a screenshot. People aren't going to know if it was edited, when it was edited, or what was edited.

Many would also be pissed if after they retweet something, the original tweet changes in a meaningful way.

Source?

It's not ridiculous as long as there are Geographers with masters degrees willing to take those jobs.

Why does Elon Musk get a pass but not Uber's CEO?