Everyone criticizing Apple is probably doing it on a computer filed with Chinese computer parts. So easy to point fingers at others. Much harder to stand up for principles when one's own economic interests are threatened.

Chinese government shouldn't be banning news sources but the NY Time has gotten away with its fake image of moral righteousness and journalistic integrity for far too long. The NY Times is the liberal version of Fox News muddled in with some crypto-nationalism when it suits the self-interest of the editorial board.(not necessarily always American nationalism for that matter) If one defines objectivity and journalistic integrity by sticking to the facts in reporting and not trying sway to public opinion through reporting by omission....there are is no major news source in the world that is objective. Not one. They are all peddling their editorial boards and ownerships POV The best news source is picking competing news sources not only from political ideology standpoint but also from competing national interests standpoint. That's the only way to get the full picture.

Funny thing about that, the Rizen 3900x is still a better deal.

Current HTTPS encryption is probably going to be compromised by quantum computing but its better than the current nothing which is the norm. It's a lot easier and cheaper for a a few browser developers to provide a stopgap than thousands of DNS servers to do it. It will also throw a bit of a wrench into all the regimes trying to censor and monitor the Internet which is like the post office opening our mail to read or deciding not to deliver it because the state disapproves.

isn't just a mechanism for the transformation of unpaid labour into corporate profit"

Contrary to the Marxist sounding thesis of this post -- free software SHOULD be used by corporations to make profit. One of the key reasons open source software became so popular is because corporations have spent huge sums of money developing open source software and utilizing it which in turn creates jobs for people with skills in open source software (e.g. Linux is the back end of the internet).. Had they not done so open source would mostly be an obscure toy.for hobbyists. And if we charged money we wouldn't call it free... The irony of this post is what the author is really arguing over is the freeloader problem that comes with publicly sharing anything. The vast majority of people, including people that work for companies, including most average people that could afford to give a small donation to open source projects, don't contribute anything to the free software community. Nevertheless you can't give away a free product and then later claim it's not free. It is what it is. What the open source community could do to better monetize itself is create a common organization (not existing GNU because its too narrow a mission) where Open source projects can choose to contribute to to have their own software represented and legally protected from any license violators. (similar to MPAA). Small players don't have the money and resources to find and go after violators but a united body would. It could also advertise their services which is where open source is supposed to be making money not by selling software.. .

I have to disagree. The OK symbols primary use, by far, is as a symbol of agreement. The Swastika is a hate symbol not the OK sign.. While one can point to other uses for Swastika they are trivial. If ADL starts trying to frame common symbols as "hate symbols", antisemitic hate groups will just keep adopting them. And each time ADL try to publically frame them as a "hate symbol" they'll look like they are trying regulate free speech by much of the public This is exactly the Jews-are-trying-to-control-the-world image what those that are using these common symbols are trying to project on Jews. Trying to put "OK" on par with Swastikas is absurd and only dilutes the ADL's effectiveness by doing so.. The far better approach would be to document the strategy of using a common symbol rather put the symbol itself on the same list of hate symbols like the Swastika. ADL is being trolled and they took the bait.

The ADL does some good work but in this case is being trolled and took the bait.. The OK sign is not a "hate" symbol. If the ADL makes a big stink narrating stupid stuff like this as a 'hate symbol" it only makes them look like control freaks, Jews trying to run the world, ... which is exactly the motive of using the common symbol. Hate groups will then just keep adopting common symbols for ADL to issue warnings about. . And ever time ADL tries to frame something most of us use as "hate" symbol it will undermined the credibility of the ADL by annoying the hell out of people as an attempt to crush their free speech. (which I myself am feeling .even though I know that's not the ADLs conscious intention here) Better strategy would be to document the strategy rather than frame the symbol as hate. Don't feed the trolls or like a meme it will gather strength though even bad press. .

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

You are right that communism is oppressive ideology that is economically disastrous. There is space gigantic space between pure capitalism and communism though.. The fact is not a single conservative government in American history were pure capitalists. Even Trump spends money on social services and regulates. America was built on being a mixed economy not some theoretical Randroid model that would almost certainly be less economically efficient. For instance, if we didn't have public schools its very plausible a substantially chunk of parents couldn't afford to give their kids an education. That translates into a workforce with far more illiterates (which was one reason why America was a still backwater in the 19th century) Their are economic problems with both pure capitalism and socialism.. America was founded on Greco-Roman values. Aristotle et al preached moderation..

IMO corporate taxes should be zero. This funnels money to industry and removes incentive for multinationals to shuffle money to offshore tax shelters. What should be dramatically increased is taxes for high income earners. Tax consumption not production. To do it right though would require closing off any tax loopholes where personal spending is portrayed as a business expense The practice of buying corporate jets, yachts, homes,etc... for use essentially only for execs... needs to end. I'd laos have much higher sales taxes on high ticket items (exotic cars,memberships to high end clubs, first class seating, etc). Create an additional flat tax based on residence type. People living in large mansions or multiple residences shouldn't be able to walk away without paying annual taxes no matter what voodoo their accounting teams and lawyers claim.. If they can't afford to pay, sell the mansio and move into something smaller. There are a wide variety of other similar taxes we could introduce to deal wtih extravagant spending. In real world practice it really doesn't matter who owns a company. What matters how money made by that company ends up in lifestyle. if someone rich wants to frivivoully spend on them themselves then the public (i.e. workers in their companies that made them rich) should see a chunk of that money to improve their own quality of life. And if someone rich doesn't spend frivolously and that money is going to improving industry it leads to everyone winning. .

Saying "don't break up big tech" is too broad a statement. Competition is what decides whether breakup makes sense. At the moment competition exists so there is really is no need to breakup. It's not like Ma Bell that sat on all sorts of technology for decades that had a virtual monopoly. Sure its a handful of tech giants mostly competing in the same areas but they are competing thus constantly improving their products -- which in the end is beneficial to consumers. Its the good side of capitalism (or at least when execs aren't cheating on their taxes by using tax havens and loopholes) No matter how big they are some new technology by a competitor could disrupt a major aspect of their business model so they keep innovating or buying up companies that do. Google dominates search but not because their aren't other good search options (bing is great). MS dominates the desktop but you can still buy Apple or put on Linux distro. Android has its opponent in IOS. etc.. Only if the current situation changes and a monopoly forms in some particular area should breakup by considered. Don't fix what's not broken. ,

Picking a name that is going to be ridiculed in perpetuity is probably not the wisest of marketing decisions.

We already know many of the miracle properties of new metamaterials. The problem with what seems like monthly revolutionary processor claims using graphene, carbon nanotubes, yada yada... without the mass production scale and cheap pricing of silicon they will be limited to niche markets and research projects.. Someone affordably mass produced chips using a metamaterial other than silicon is where the real revolutionary breakthrough needs to happen.