Schuko all the way, best plug on the planet (at the moment). Ground always attaches first, the socket forms a protective casing and pins can not be touched long before contact happens, is protected from elements better, latched inlets (both pins need to push on them to allow the plug thru), can be plugged in two orientations.. Seems counterintuitive that it would be the safest to have neutral and live be allowed to switch places but it prevents highly dangerous practice of connecting earth and neutral inside the appliance, 50% of the time that would short and trip the fuses. Appliance manufacturers HAS to follow basic safety quidelines. Also means onnecting a plug is easy, just breen-yellow to ground, rest is up to you which way you want them. In fact, most of use can't remembers which color is neutral and which is live as they are BOTH treated as live.

Also they don't have fuses in the plug. Again, seems counterintuitive but the fuse is meant to protect individual parts of the circuit. The fuse in the appliances them selves protect the appliance, not it's cord. The fuses on the wall sockets have to be built to protect all cabling, both in and out of the wall.

Small details but it forces buildings to be built with higher standards, less shortcuts can be made.

One feature on Schuko is that when pulled from the cable, the plug leaves the socket first. In UK plugs, you can have a situation where someone trips on a wire and the wire will leave the plug, plug stays in the wall (or wall socket is damaged too) Making the weak point the plug-socket connection, the wire will stay firmly screwed inside the plug, socket and plug will be undamaged. There are L shape plugs too with Shcuko so this is not always the case but most often, those are incased and molded: your appliance will take the hit instead and fly off the desk. Also stops dangerous cable pulling with long cables with extensions for ex in construction sites. You have to actually go and move it yourself. Safer, more work but safer (yes, there are few cases where we knot the wires to stop it happening but when done by a professional, we know how to knot them so that the force is not pulling or bending the plugs at all, otherwise they can disconnect by them selves, often modus operandi when rigging lights)

Also, the pins are round, making bent pins something that just wont happen unless you drive a truck over them. Damaged, bent pins will be destroyed in the process, preventing someone to just bend them back in shape: the tube will not be round again.. It's a genius design.

Only thing that it is horrible at is transformers, small PSUs that takes up sometimes three sockets as Shcuko is more compact, the extensions are smaller then too.. So sometimes two wall sockets can take one PSU and we end up with lots of extensions chained with half of the sockets filled (i got 600 led lights in my living room, takes 4 extensions to get them all running, half of the sockets are used....)

I have to hear the Fox News drivel every day blaring at ultra high volumes from downstairs every day. I can't wait to get out of this house again, just to escape the maddening stuff. Depressing so many people think that it is agenda free and all the others are the one that have the agenda because Fox News and often times the pulpit says so. Don't question authority, unless said authority is a demoncrat as they tend to think of the Dems...

Of course once upon a time I did too, then I started applying actual critical thinking rather than what they said, often by going "if you really think about it..." then apply some logical fallacy that sounds true enough that you repeat it and feel embarrassed later that not only did you believe it that you actually propagated the non-sense. I used to be a hardcore Christian Republican (even had posted on the Sift under another name, but could never recover the password for, defending Fox News saying how they may be to the right but that is just to balance out how far left the mainstream media's which I was lead to believe were near Pravda). Then I had problems with legislating morality, mostly Republican drug policy and became a Christian Libertarian. Then I had an issue with American style Free Market Capitalism, and felt we had to do more to help the needy and the poor as Jesus commanded us to, and I went more or less an independent leaning to the Green/Democrat.

My faith if God started waning as I had issues with so many Christians voting Republican as the party was clearly opposed to everything I was reading in the Bible, and if Jehovah was any more real than any other supposed god, such as Odin (who at least apparently got rid of the Frost Giants as I've never seen one or evidence of one), then He'd be screaming at them that is the wrong way (now to be fair, half of the Christians in this nation also feel the Dems are more Christian oriented than Republicans, and many of the more liberal of them would point out that the election and more importantly the re-election of Obama was God's way of saying just that).

Then hundreds of Christians shouted "let them die! Let them die!" over and over again at the Republican debate and Christianity lost me forever. The Republican right wanted to see people like me and my children die because my employer doesn't offer an affordable health care plan and they don't want their taxes to help with getting health insurance either. And it wasn't just about me, because even if I got a better job, somebody has to work that job, somebody has to sacrifice health insurance so some rich guy who can more than afford to pay living wages and affordable health care for all who work for him, chooses not to in order to make himself rich, and over half the Christians in this country support the position, they vote for people who want to give that rich guy more tax cuts, and cut all aid to the people he employs. They want those people to die, as they said at the debate. Confront them and they'll say no, they don't want them to die, but the people who work there should take responsibility for their own selves, and ignore the fact somebody has to work there. They seem to think that people only work where they want to work at, and that everybody at that big box retailer is working there because its what they want rather than the fact it was who called and offered the job. They seem to think that in fact, no, nobody needs to work that spot if I didn't work it, that anybody needing affordable health insurance and a living wage simply wouldn't work the people working, or I, weren't too lazy to do so, that somehow everyone working jobs not paying living wages and not having affordable health care took those jobs out of laziness and not necessity.

Not what you're watching though-Pig is playing, dog is playing, neither is in survival-circuit-instinct-mode. This is a simple manifestation of the unique, hard-wired breed-orientation of specific species.

'Gay, not gay' is nothing more than a distraction alla Edward Bernays to me, baby-People of all races, creeds, colors are easily and idiocratic-ally sucked-into identity/orientation mumbo-jumbo is my real 'beef' with adverts like these....They're produced by assholes for morons. Enjoy your super-sized slavery, would you like cheese on that??

Can't argue that BK has turned to complete shit as have ALL fast-food chain-driven shit-holes.

For what it's worth, I did some digging and the rumors that Tim Cook is gay seem to be at least partially sourced to a speech he made in 2013.

http://business.time.com/2013/12/15/apple-ceo-tim-cook-gives-remarkable-speech-on-gay-rights-racism/

The relevant bit is at about 3:10 when he says that "I have seen, and I have experienced many other types of discrimination, and all of them were rooted in the fear of people that were different from the majority."

The rest of the speech talks about human rights in general, whether from a perspective of disability, race or gender.

Sure, it sounds like he's hinting at discrimination he experienced as a gay man in Alabama, but it could just as easily be sloppy wording on his part. I'm leaning towards sloppy wording just because I don't think he would hint at his sexual orientation so casually. As Apple's CEO, such a move would be a lot more intentional and carefully orchestrated.

So again, the CNBC host doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and he didn't out anyone. He just spread unsubstantiated rumors.

Wait. So the guy who may or may not have actually reached out to Tim Cook personally about his sexual orientation simply (and correctly) refused to discuss any actual names, but some random talking head with no special knowledge about Tim Cook's sexual orientation claimed he was gay, and that is supposed to constitute an outing?

The title should read: "CNBC host behaves unprofessionally and spreads unconfirmed rumors." Saying that he outed Tim Cook implies that the CNBC host had some special knowledge confirming that the rumors are true, and at this point we just don't know.

The real issue here is that some guy wrote a column about gay CEOs and consistently ran into the fact that very few of them are willing to be named.

This is speculation here, but my guess is that if you've managed to become the CEO of a fortune 500 company, then on a personal level you are probably confident enough and socially stable enough to come out of the closet.

The real reason these gay CEOs (whoever they may be) aren't coming out of the closet is very likely just because the act of a CEO coming out is perceived to negatively affect share prices. I don't know whether this is just an assumption made personally by these CEOs or if the board of directors at their company actively made it clear to them that it would be a bad move, but this phenomenon is the real story and we shouldn't let all of this viral nonsense about Tim Cook being "outed" distract us from fixing it.

A very money orientated opinion, but there are other ways to add value to the world and/or build something for the next generation without being entirely that way. In fact, it is not always beneficial to society in the long term to make the most immediately "profitable" choice.

Which asks the question that i think you and Jim have different answers to and that question is "What is most important in life?" or something similar. I imagine Jim likes to entertain people, make them laugh or smile, it brings him joy and he found a way to make it work. There might not be many Jim Carreys but there are plenty of small-time entertainers who get by just fine and do what they love.

Nowadays i believe in balance in most things, you need to be happy just as much as you need to make money, but some people can't make money doing what they love - so contribute and make money, but try to contribute something of benefit in the grand scheme where possible. You need money, and money makes it possible to contribute in other ways, but you'd get bored of ferarris and vegas after a few years as a billionaire, but bringing happiness to others and making the world a better place will feel good forever.

I don't discriminate on skin color or sexual orientation. I discriminate based on actions only.

So explain your little devil toy avatar.

wOw, you and bob are just kings of the dodge aren't you.

People who discriminate on the basis of skin color and orientation aren't adults.

I ain't going away bigot. Time for you to make a decision.

Don't give me that false equivalence BS, you don't have a different viewpoint, you have a demonstrably bad viewpoint.

I don't hate you, I pity you. I'm not the one that hates homosexuals and minorities,

people like you and lantern who judge people on the basis of skin color, and sexual orientation....

...are not good people, it's that simple. You are relics of the past.

It is socially acceptable to shame and call out people like you and lantern when we catch you voicing your antiquated ideas. Your social viewpoints are becoming less and less acceptable with each day. Even the right is slowly backing away on their attacks on minorities and homosexuals.

Your ideas...don't work, they never did.

I've told you and your pal lantern many times that you are free to be as backwards thinking as you want in the privacy of your own home and your own brain. But when you voice your bad ideas in public, expect to be called out and shamed.

You can play the victim card all you want. but you know it's not just me picking on you. Long before I ever showed up, you've been called out and shamed by many others here and you've been reprimanded by the staff of this website on multiple occasions. I'm willing to bet that unless you live in a hole in the ground in the deep south, you know better than to voice your ideas in public in real life since you know you'll get in trouble. Being an anonymous troll on a website is the only place you can voice your bad ideas, isn't it?

I understand that you're angry. The world changed on you and you're too set on your old ideas to change with it. Well you better hang on, because it's going to keep on changing and people who share your viewpoint will keep dying of old age. As it should be.

As I told lantern, start taking your own advice. You keep claiming that gays and minorites need to "suck it up".

Suck it up bob, suck it up. Why don't you practice what you preach about "rugged individualism" and quit whining? Take it like a man, right?

If you don't like it, go find a website that shares your viewpoints. Freedom of speech does not exist on a private website.

Deal with it. Your prejudice is only going to keep getting called out and you will continue to get shamed.

Well let me put it like I saw it.

You were "endorsing" a statement made by Lantern that was attacking someone on the basis of their sexual orientation or physical attributes. I think his statement was hateful, it wasn't the more horrible thing to say, but it was derisive and repugnant.

So no while you didn't say anything directly hateful, you defended something hateful.

Some disconnected thoughts:

I didn't mean to say what you weren't saying. Apologies. I do like what you said here, "for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do." Yes, a crappy thing. I think we'd better get used to it; at least in the United States where people want to adhere to the letter of the law when it comes to asserting their rights.

Am I wrong in assuming you live outside of the States? If so that makes it easy for me to understand your stance on religious rights being unequal with other rights.

I am not insisting that discrimination be protected. Far from it. If you were being discriminated against you would want me in your corner. I detest discrimination. What I find interesting about all of the cases you mentioned, the only reason a gay couple has given for asking the state to enforce the anti-discrimination laws is over the issue of marriage and the issue of marriage alone. The photographer and bakers apparently served the gay community in other capacities from their storefronts without incident. No lawsuits, no nothing. I think we have to ask 'why?" What is it specifically about marriage that would cause a Christian (or a Muslim, or any number of religions for that matter), to say, "I can't participate in that?" I suspect that if the couple in question had been a man and two or three women getting married that the business owners response would have been the same - that is not our understanding of marriage, sorry we can't in good conscience go there." At the risk of repeating myself, their refusal isn't about the people they refused. It is specifically about the act of marriage.

As an aside, I find it ironic to the nth degree that the State of Oregon is trying to legally compel the bakery owners to participate in a ceremony that is illegal in the State of Oregon. Marriage among gays in Oregon is illegal. Sigh. This is why I wish religion, of any sort, would get out of the business of telling people what to do. I would like to see a withdrawal from the legislation of religious tenets that are not in line with the US Constitution. Then gays could marry freely in this country and this argument could be put away.

Many of the problems in this world could be resolved if the religionists didn't feel like they needed to make everyone outside of their religion believe and behave like they do. As I see it, in a free society, a religious belief should not be able compel those outside that belief to do anything.

You may be familiar with openly gay author/blogger Andrew Sullivan who has written about this subject. He says: I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

There is, of course, extensive writing on this issue by all sides and we may never be able to untangle it here but I have enjoyed getting your perspective.



“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

I hope you're right. I hope we never have an opportunity to find out. But here is, in part, the text of Oregon's law:

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

"Religion" doesn't not have a special designation of 'unless' in there. I can see those Westboro Baptist a-holes notice that and will have some gay bakers baking a cake for them every day of the week.

All of this discussion is really a digression of my initial post which was to say: If our communities were stronger, if we'd risk more relationally, if we'd put down the electronics and get to know each other, it sure would be a lot easier to get along. We would have less use for the legal system to resolve our differences.

Let me ask you, have you ever seen a law change someone's heart? I haven't.

Anyone else besides @chingalera picking up a strong misandry vibe in Schumer's comedy? So much of her "comedy" has a "feminist" orientation that seems to do little more than put men down as being merely insensitive, dumb, hypersexual, and dishonest douchebags with no redeeming qualities.

First of all, I believe the Canadian woman who wanted to force devout Muslim men to cut her hair is a jerk. I think that's kind of obvious. Outside of human rights, I think there should be laws to protect you from jerks. Depending on the area, municipal or provincial legislatures could address these kinds of issues in a more sensitive, localized, one on one basis.

But when it comes to basic, universal, human rights; your life, the colour of your skin, the sex you were born as and your sexual orientation are more protected than the thoughts in your head.

So when you say “People on both sides have rights” You leave me with the impression that you think these rights are equal, and they are not.

You've boiled the issue down far too much to make an effective point. The video is titled "Stop telling women to smile". Neither of the two women interviewed had anything to say about them being harassed by being told to smile (at least, not that they spoke of on-camera).

Sage's point was that telling someone to smile isn't necessarily harassment, and he's right. I tell people at work all the time "hey, come on man, smile" as a means of trying to cheer them up.

There's a difference between that some random street walker hitting on you, making the title just seem... ineffective. Something more along the lines of "Stop Street Harassment" or "We're not a piece of meat", something that actually explains the problem better than the title the artist chose to go with.

At the end of the day, to me at least, this video is trying to make a larger point about smiling = looking good, women need to look good (or are objectified by men so they need to look good) therefore, women must smile to look pretty for men all the time and STOP telling us to do so!

If it's not that, then the real reason it's called "Stop telling women to smile" eludes me.

I'm not saying that it's not a problem. ANY form of harassment is a problem, weather it be racial, gender, sexual orientation, etc. based. But rallying behind someone being told to smile? That's just meh.

And before you ask, no, i'm not saying that there isn't a problem with harassment. And I'm not saying it's a minor one. I'm saying that "Hey babe, nice tits!" is more something to be offended by. I'm not a woman and get told to smile all the damn time.