It is a mixture of psychopathy and megalomania. He expresses a belief that women exist to provide men with sex, and his anger stems from a belief that women have been given the power to choose who to have sex with yet failed to choose him. He believes that he is better than everyone else and is angry that women are having sex with "inferior" men. He does not think killing other people is a problem; he thinks that his own death is the worst outcome of his plot, made necessary only because the alternative is to live in a jail cell. He also describes killing his roommates as necessary, lest they get in the way of his plot (which included torturing people in his apartment).
In his ideal world, there would be a benevolent dictator -- "benevolent" in this context includes exterminating women by starvation, save for a few that are kept locked up in labs where they exist only for reproduction -- and he suggests himself as this dictator. According to his theory if there are no women there will be no sex, and men can rise to higher levels of achievement (notice how he blames his shortcomings on others). He also believes that there would be no love in such a world, though he seems to have a poorly developed notion of love as an emotion (he speaks of love in terms of sex, and never associates love with any specific person other than himself).
Not all Jews are Zionists and most American Zionists are not Jewish. Stop referring to a "Jewish lobby" when you mean an "Israel lobby" or "Zionist lobby." The term "Jewish lobby" is misleading, easily misunderstood, and mildly antisemitic.
This is not offering you a discount in return for your viewing targeted ads, because nothing here actually requires you to view ads in the first place. This is more like saying, "Pay us more and we won't sell your browsing history to whatever company offers us money."
Actually, I think coroutines are easier to understand in higher-level languages that support call/cc -- Scheme, for example. Yield is just another continuation, no different from return, throw, restart, etc.
I agree and disagree. Coroutines can be thought of as a degenerate case of continuations (sometimes called "single-shot continuations"). I contend that understanding continuations is at least as hard as understanding coroutines, but that if you understand one concept the other follows easily. So for people already comfortable with continuations, I agree, otherwise I disagree (in fact, I had a hard time grokking continuations until I thought of them as generalized coroutines).
"They remove the gatekeeper for financial services"
Hardly. Even if you ran your entire business on Bitcoin, you would still need to find an exchange when the tax man came around demanding fiat currency (unless you are dealing in such tiny amounts that you can rely on people you find online, but then your business is probably not very successful). Exchanges are the gatekeepers of cryptocurrencies; Bitcoin, Litecoin, and every other "coin" would have just been worthless toys if exchanges had not been set up.
There is also the reality of cryptocurrency use that must be considered: almost all businesses (legal and illegal) that "accept Bitcoin" actually "accept $NATIONAL_CURRENCY via a Bitcoin exchange/service." Illegal businesses try to decouple their Bitcoin payments from the exchange i.e. they attempt to launder their money (no surprises there); legal businesses proudly announce which Bitcoin service they are using to "accept Bitcoin." Those services and exchanges are gatekeepers in practice, and are increasingly compliant with money service laws and regulations (just like banks).
"Something that just came up to me: why is making porn movies for money legal, but prostitution is illegal?"
The law is not a strictly logical system (this is usually a good thing, despite the common negative perceptions). Pornography was once illegal; then the interpretation of the law changed so that it would be considered "protected speech," unless it is being displayed in certain contexts. Prostitution is illegal in most of the USA, except for certain forms which are not illegal (e.g. it may not be illegal to have sex with your boss in exchange for a promotion).
I think Comcast, owner of NBC Universal, has little ground to stand on here. Streaming is an inefficient use of the Internet that is popular only because people are too terrified of lawsuits to use better technologies like BitTorrent. Comcast has worked hard to set up the legal environment that created this situation; they will see no sympathy from me.
These weird political fights are in the wrong arena. I'm not going to try to argue with you about what it means to fight a new technology and whether a decades old business model is valid or not, because it's just silly. Regardless of how you and I feel whether a company is doing the right thing, it's there and it's surviving, and in this case, thriving, in its niche.
It might feel good to bad mouth giant corporations and swear that you'll never invite them to the next family BBQ because of some negotiation spat they have with each other, but, in reality, all successful big corporations get down in the mud like everyone else. If you don't like what they do, try and get the law changed.
But please stop with this whiny horseshit... it's like crying to your mom over Billy eating your desert from your packed lunch. It's sad and pathetic and no matter how many of you all bleigh the same memes and buzzwords over and over again, it won't have any lasting effect.
In general I agree with the sentiment behind this post. Except, I disagree with one sentence that's key to the context in the case of Comcast:
"If you don't like what they do, try and get the law changed." I think this needs to be appended with "and do not buy goods and/or services from them."
Unfortunately, in my case with Comcast, as with many high speed ISPs around the country, there is 0 competition. In order to get speeds higher than 5Mbps in my area, the only option I have is Comcast. In an anti-competitive / monopoly market, I lose the ability to vote with my wallet by finding a competitor whose practices I agree with.
In his ideal world, there would be a benevolent dictator -- "benevolent" in this context includes exterminating women by starvation, save for a few that are kept locked up in labs where they exist only for reproduction -- and he suggests himself as this dictator. According to his theory if there are no women there will be no sex, and men can rise to higher levels of achievement (notice how he blames his shortcomings on others). He also believes that there would be no love in such a world, though he seems to have a poorly developed notion of love as an emotion (he speaks of love in terms of sex, and never associates love with any specific person other than himself).