Slashdot Mirror

The chips will be supplied by Kapsch ( http://www.kapsch.net/en/KapschGroup/press/articles/Pages/ktc_120810_pr.aspx ). These chips/devices are similar to the E-Z Pass in the NorthEast U.S. They are notorious for malfunctioning... http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-17/toll-poaching-ezpass/55038948/1 http://www.newstribune.com/news/2012/jun/28/e-z-pass-not-always-so-easy/ http://www.wkbw.com/news/local/49044786.html http://consumerist.com/2007/07/e-zpass-charge-you-fee-when-it-malfunctions.html The difference is that these are mandatory. If they do malfunction, how would it affect an innocent individual?

I've calced out an autodrive system to be 'worth' around $20k to the 'average' person, with the following assumptions:
1. The system is better than 90% of drivers. It may get into accidents that a human would have avoided, but it avoids accidents that a human would have caused. IE it might get into an accident where it didn't recognize the hazard that would have been very obvious to a human, but avoided an accident where the human wouldn't have been able to react fast enough. Whatever, it's somewhere around that 95th percentile. Easily 'professional driver' range for preventing accidents. Result: 90% savings on insurance costs. ($1k-5k/year, depending on record)
2. The vehicle is driven, on average, 1 hour a day, the system lasts 5 years(pessimistic, most cars last 10+), and the ex-driver values his or her time at $10/hour(works, reads a book, surfs the internet while transiting). ($18k)
3. The system results in mild mpg savings(round up)

How valuable would it be to others? Do you drink outside your house? Average cost of a DUI conviction is like $10k. Have a DUI? $1.3k a year for one of those breathalyzer systems, which is a big pain to start your vehicle with AND during driving. Which you might not need if you get an autodrive vehicle instead. Heck, get them widespread enough and it might be mandated for you.

Right now google's system costs $150k per car, with nearly half($70k) being for the laser lidar system. So it's not worth it to the 'average' individual. But what about for cargo moving? Semi-Tractor Trailers? Raise the cost of a driver to $20/hour(more realistic) and 8 hours a day, and it'd be worth it at $320k. Pay some contractor to fill the truck up when it comes in for fuel.

Besides that, there's lidar systems coming out as cheap as $250 per vehicle, which leaves ~$60k cheaper on other parts to make it worth it - and how much of that equipment cost is because it all has to be had made and assembled to modify a car? Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper if it's a factory installed option?

The first story that popped up on Google: http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/2011-05-16-mini-flash-crashes-market-worry_n.htm

And they haven't stopped: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/visualizing-todays-last-second-60000-e-mini-contract-wipe-out

Who apparently weren't too happy about it:
http://traveltips.usatoday.com/history-maine-lobster-21560.html

During colonial times, lobster was food for the poverty stricken, prisoners and indentured servants. In the Massachusetts colony that encompassed the land that became known as Maine, indentured servants protested and had instructions written in to their seven-year contracts that they would not be forced to eat lobster more than three times a week.

Bullshit prepaid carries don't subsidize phones, they do and they lock the phone to their network. Yes, I know they allow you to bring your own phone, I acknowledged that when I mentioned buying an unlocked iPhone direct from Apple, but that has no bearing on whether or not they subsidize the phones. They don't subsidize *iPhones* because Apple won't allow it, but they damned well do subsidize other phones. Every single phone on this page, aside from the two iPhone models, is subsidized. Take, for example, the LG Optimus Elite (the first phone listed there that I found on another carrier); Sprint gives it away for free with a 2 year contract, $249.99 unsibsidized, $149.99 through Virgin Mobile. It's cheap because it's an entry-level phone; it's not even on par with the iPhone 3Gs, which can be had, unsibsidized, from AT&T for $375.99. That LG phone is subsidized, buddy, as are the rest of the Android phones on that page, and the $15-50 dumb-phones they offer. The only thing on that page that is not subsidized, I'll say it again, are the iPhones.

Virgin Mobile doesn't offer any Android phones that come close to comparing with even the iPhone 3Gs, save for maybe the HTC Evo V, which I'd compare to the HTC Evo 4G on Sprint, except that the Evo V has a 3d camera. For the sake of fairness, we'll say that adds nothing to the price of the phone, Sprint's subsidized price is $199.99, while Virgin is selling it for 299.99; unsubsidized, it's a $549.99 phone. Now, if the 3d camera adds to the price of the phone, which you and I both know it does, Virgin is subsidizing it by more than is indicated by the above.

Statistically speaking at least in the US...

Because that's all that matters, right?

[The] 3 major providers who carry the iPhone are still only a small fraction of the world cellular market, and in that market, there are many, many more Android phones in use.

I could go on limiting the scope in ways that make my position look valid, as well, but I don't have to. Also, your second point only works to further prove the point I was trying to make. Regardless which of these estimates you beleive, it's clear that Android sales surpassed iPhone sales by the end of last year. If you go with the lower estimate of 32 million Android phones sold by Samsung (and ONLY Samsung), and spend about 10 seconds doing some research, you'll find that there were certainly more than 3.1 million Android phones sold in the same quarter by other manufacturers, a statistic that tops Apple's 35.06 million figure. If you go with either of the other estimates, Samsung singlehandedly beat Apple's sales in Q3 of last year. Samsung's market share has been steadily growing since then, while Apple's growth seems to be slowing. Samsung's sales have been ahead of Apple's all year; now, add the other Android phone manufacturers to that and tell me, which platform is more in demand?

But, of course, you'll just limit the scope back to the US again, and you're right, Android is on a decline in the US, but it's exploding everywhere else. The US comprises a mere 5% of the world population, with China having more than 4x the population of the US; I should say the US market doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

For anybody who wants to read the actual interview article with Bolden instead of just relying on MarkWhittington's distorted Yahoo summary, you can find the interview here:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/story/2012-08-01/NASA-mars-rover/56656270/1

Actually, Illinois is not the most corrupt per capita. Recent surveys have put North Dakota or Louisiana at the top.

"by the people, for the people" gets so corrupted in DC because of all of the lobbying and grandstanding that goes on. This whole hype of the TSA was unnecessary and now we've created a bigger bureaucracy in Washington. The whole body scan thing was a lobbied effort. Since we know nobody in DC actually does their own work and relies on lobbyists and staff to come up with things to do, twist enough arms, throw enough cash around and you can usually get what you want. Also don't forget all of those ex-government directors and leaders who've gone into lobbying for those companies as well. All under the guises of

“Lobbyists are not the problem. Terrorists are the ones who can do harm to innocent victims."

Really? what an astute observation from somebody who gets paid to lobby in favor of this horseshit.

Blah

Lobbyists and the way Washington DC operates are at the core of our greater ills and as long as we have revolving door policies allowing ex government officials to join lobbying groups and legal practices that attempt to influence our government, it will always be driven by money because we all know fear pays. Especially for Chertoff.

Eventually people in this country will come to their senses and realize that this is all theater and doesn't make them safer, it does cost them more and makes their lives inconvenient and more exposed. So much for the land of the free.

Until then I shall continue to work on my mind scanning device that will sense brainwave patterns and automatically recover memories and thoughts so we can weed out terrorists everywhere. Once I've figured out the electronics and made it sufficiently unsafe in terms of radiation exposure, I will then get a lobbying firm and sell it on the hill. It will eliminate the need for body scans entirely however there will be some side effects I fear: Loss of Memory, False prosecutions, Secret Lists and longer lines at the airport, bus terminal, subway and any other public transit location where people congregate.

I agree with the first two points and I know it's supposed to be a secular nation; but from the outside looking in and from stories posted here. It doesn't look that secular.
I looked up if adultery is legal in the USA and found in some places, it wasn't. I'd look into in more but its not a point I need to prove either way. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-04-26-column26_ST_N.htm

By point is, the NSA is involved in the supply of information that can and will be used for the purpose of killing people. I don't agree with killing; but if the state is going to murder. Then the very least I hope for is the information be correct.

Facebook doesn't concern of interest me. It's another flash-in-the-pan, and I'd be quite surprised if the stock price comes back in the next 12 months.

They certainly get a disproportionate share of hype, but I wouldn't quite call Facebook a flash-in-the-pan. For all the talk, they're profitable and revenue grew 32% this quarter. What hurt the stock price was that growth was down from the 45% growth the previous quarter and costs skyrocketed. Meanwhile, user base is up 29% from a year ago to 955 million active monthly users.

The stock price's vicious downdraft, despite the fact the company is earning a profit and increasing its customer base, highlights the "disconnect between the stock and the company," says John Fitzgibbon of IPOScoop.com.

All from the other USA Today article...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/story/2012-07-27/facebook-stock/56525044/1

Well, compared to most other things military spends money on, developing better infantry armor is very cheap

Especially if you make the soldiers pay for their own armor... they're only going to pay for R&D, not for the armor itself!

Because I have better things to be doing. (Like posting on Slashdot.) The problem with self-reliance is that it requires you to be an expert at everything you do. Not just proficient, but an expert. If the healthcare company includes a screw-you clause and you miss it, then you are screwed. Think of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. The insurance companies sold many people hurricane insurance. A lot of people lost their houses to the storm surge, which the insurance claimed was "flood damage" and, if you didn't have flood insurance, you were out of luck.

Potentally? Yes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8650626.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-03-23-china-stabbing-eight_N.htm

Mod as troll, flamebait, or whatever... it is true, and you know it.

Current technology would allow a bunch of fat ( http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/AdultObesity/LatestFindings.html ) Americans to stop driving SUVs. A VW lupo engined car gets 78Mpg (no hybrid BS, just a reasonable sized engine in a reasonable sized car [5 occupants]) http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/mareview/mauto497.htm. With giant SUVs with their single (as big as a house) occupant getting what, 10Mpg?!

It would also allow a bunch of fat Americans to stop turning every light on in their houses.

It would allow fat Americans to insulate their homes, and stop running their air conditioners non-stop in the summer, and heaters non-stop in the winter.

It would also allow folks to use efficient lighting if a bunch of fat American Republicans would stop trying to "protect the right" of fat Americans to waste energy on incandescent light bulbs.

It would also allow the US military to stop wasting more petroleum than any other entity in the world. Wasted by fat wasteful, mostly white (those in charge, not the cannon fodder), Americans to kill poor, non-wasteful, thin, mostly brown "others" all around the globe in a quest for global dominance of all remaining petroleum reserves.

"The DoD uses 360,000 barrels of oil each day. This amount makes the DoD the single largest oil consumer in the world. There are only 35 countries in the world consuming more oil than DoD."

http://www.dailyenergyreport.com/2011/01/how-much-energy-does-the-u-s-military-consume/

Really, if fat wasteful Americans would just conserve (no real sacrifice needed, since the majority of U.S. "use" is really waste), we (the world) would be in much better shape.

Well you'll be shocked to learn that I actually agree with you.

You have a funny definition of "agree", as you then proceed to go out of your way to make excuses for them and put them on a pedestal.

but the point requires an adult mind to bring adult judgement to a real world situation

It requires a critical mind instead of a fanboy mind, which you obviously lack.

http://www.manufacturing.net/blogs/2012/07/google-made-in-the-usa

I hope it works out and leads to more, but it's a token effort and could just as easily be passed off as a PR stunt.

http://www.google.org/

http://www.corp.att.com/edu/

http://www.google.com/landing/givesback/2011/

Wal-Mart tops list of charitable cash contributors, AT&T No. 2

Comcast and Verizon and ATT have REPEATEDLY shown themselves to be rapacious ,exploitative and dishonest.

And it when it comes to things like privacy, I gave you plenty of examples where Google was acting in a self-serving manner, which you ignored.

If Google wants to protect NN by laying down fiber and bypassing that group of assholes then I say bully for them and more power to them.

I do too, but ultimately it's in Google's self-interest to do so, and the whole point is that you can't blindly trust Google to not take advantage if they ever gain a dominant position. The other thing, going back to privacy, is that being the ISP means you see all traffic.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2012/05/climate-weather-warmest-year-on-record-/1

so I guess people who were motivated by their political ideology to minimize the temperature are what's known as reality-deny fanatics.

Yeah, that's pretty much all there is to say on that topic.

google posts a rise in earnings for same period http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-07-19/google-earnings/56340478/1

The actual problem for FB is that 1.6 billion shares could be dumped by insiders in the next several months. I don't expect it to happen, but a bunch will. But, but, but... didn't they only sell 421 million shares at the IPO. Yeah, but, insiders have been granted 1.6 billion shares beforehand. See http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/story/2012-05-25/facebook-insider-lockup-period/55208546/1

> The onslaught of Facebook stock looks like an avalanche. At the 91-day point after
> the IPO, insiders are able to sell 268 million shares of stock. Between 91 and
> 181 days after the IPO, insiders can sell an additional 137 million shares. And
> then after 181 days following the IPO, another 1.2 billion shares are free to be sold.

I don't think that every insider will cash out (e.g. Mark Z wants to retain control) but obviously a bunch of "paper millionaires" will want to get out while the getting out is still good. For a country-by-country breakdown of Facebook's numbers, over various timeranges, check out http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics/?interval=last-month#chart-intervals

Actually demand in the US is so low right now the big oil companies are making more money exporting from the US.

Brings to mind Northwest Flight 188 from San Diego to Minneapolis. The degree of distraction here was extreme to say the least. Though one peice of automation that was not installed would have saved them from this mistake: most new transport style aircraft models include a system that warns the pilot that they have not interacted with the aircraft in a specific amount of time. Like the following:
PILOT RESPONSE: Advisory message after 30 min in cruise, 8 min in descent.
PILOT RESPONSE: Caution message & beeper after 35 min in cruise, 9 min in descent.
PILOT RESPONSE: Warning massage & siren after 40 min in cruise, 10 min in descent.
Since the automation is so capable it should include features like this to keep the humans honest...

Adultery is a crime.

If you go to a bar, and try and pick up a woman who is not your wife, you should go to jail, and in Michigan, for life. Right?

Of course not! You should be stoned to death, like the good book says.

Adultery is a crime. If you go to a bar, and try and pick up a woman who is not your wife, you should go to jail, and in Michigan, for life. Right?

You must have.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-10-05-federal-prosecutor-immunity_N.htm

Sounds very similar to the renovations at Dallas Love Field - http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/story/2012-06-19/Faster-better-airport-security-checkpoints-not-that-far-off/55693916/1

Its been talked about briefly today but the biggest issue is that the system needs an accurate database to work. That means either you have people driving around all the time getting new data OR you are constantly connecting to the internet and exchanging your position data and those around you all the time to a central network.

The other big problem is the huge database you'll have to carry around. We are talking about trillions of data points in the US alone. The only way you get around this have an always on data connection over the internet or private network and exchange only local data.

Either issue will kill this project unless the 'free wireless internet' that president Bush pushed for and Obama promised would be instituted with the 'newly' opened up TV frequencies from switching from analog to digital tv.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2008-12-01-free-broadband_N.htm
http://www.bigbureaucracy.com/?p=1769
http://promises.nationaljournal.com/science-technology/expand-high-speed-internet-access-in-rural-areas/

khipu laid out plenty of facts and 2 minutes crawling the net would confirm everything he says.

How much data do you need? If you need everything referencing, here's about 5 minutes worth:

Healthcare cop-out:

Cut a secret deal to kill the public option, while campaigning on its behalf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

Cut a deal to exempt abortion services from health care reform
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/21/deal-struck-on-abortion-clears-path-for-health-care-passage/

Pushed for a 5 year prison term for Charles Lynch, the operator of a medical marijuana dispensary, legal under California law
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/21/BA1V175SB9.DTL

Granted waivers for 30 companies, including McDonald's, exempting them from health care reform
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Warmonger:

Sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8389778.stm

Successfully protected Bush officials from prosecution for torture
http://washingtonindependent.com/33985/in-torture-cases-obama-toes-bush-line

Proposed a three year freeze on domestic spending, exempting cuts from the Pentagon and Homeland Security
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/26/obama-allies-struggle-to_n_436996.html

Argued that the widespread use of Predator drones is a justifiable form of self-defense
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/drone-attacks-legit-self-defense-says-administration-lawyer/

Revived "Prompt Global Strike" weapons system, considered too controversial by Bush Administration
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/obama-revives-rumsfeld-era-missile-scheme/

Backed off on his promise to close the prison at Guantanamo
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/us/politics/26gitmo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Extended the Patriot Act without making any reforms
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms

Cronyism:

Violated his own ban on lobbyists working for the administration
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/

Sided with utility companies in lawsuit to stop greenhouse gas emissions
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/26/obama-stance-on-climate-suit-stuns-allies/

Gave permits to BP and other oil companies, exempting them from environmental protection laws
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html

Appointed Lawrence Summers as his top economic advise

khipu put plenty of facts forward, and 2 minutes on google would confirm everything he says.

Here you go, some facts with references:

Cut a secret deal to kill the public option, while campaigning on its behalf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

Granted waivers for 30 companies, including McDonald's, exempting them from health care reform
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Continued renditions of alleged terrorists to countries where they could be tortured
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html

Blocked the release of photos documenting the torture and abuse of detainees by the US military
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/president-oba-5.html

Continued the practice of indefinite detentions for alleged terrorists
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html

Extended the Patriot Act without making any reforms
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms

Pushed for mandatory DNA testing of those arrested for crimes, regardless of whether they have been convicted
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34097.html

Dramatically increased government secrecy, blocking more FOIA requests in 2009 than Bush did in 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/obamas-broken-promise-fed_n_500526.html

Cut a deal to exempt abortion services from health care reform
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/21/deal-struck-on-abortion-clears-path-for-health-care-passage/

Announced a $60 billion sale of arms to the Saudi Arabian dictatorship, the largest arms deal in history
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20016181-503543.html

About 6 minute's worth

OnStar really isn't highend, it's standard on all GM cars. A lot of dealerships will install a compatible unit if you ask them for it too. Hell you can go down to your local Bestbuy(yeah I know) and buy the stand alone unit for your car actually. They sell it aftermarket for $299, though, it's now apparently $99 and then it's $18.95/mo for the service or $199/yr.

Just because your area wasn't affected does not mean anything. At least 12 people died.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/storms/story/2012-06-30/storms-power-eastern-us/55936366/1?csp=hf

Yes, especially when the government (AKA "we the people") wants you to stop freeloading on the health insurance system we're paying for.

If that's what you wanted, you've picked a bad way of accomplishing it. In 2009, the average individual health insurance plan cost $4824/year (sorry, I can't seem to find more recent figures). If we guess that the premiums will increase by the same amount in the following eight years as the ones before, we are looking at doubling that to $9000. The penalty for not having insurance is $695/year or 2.5% of income, whichever is greater. With a $9000 premium, you break even when you earn $300000/year. If you are making minimum wage, $8000 is a humongous chunk of disposable income to waste on health insurance, so you most likely wouldn't have bought it before either. Since you can buy and sell insurance at any time, there is no benefit whatsoever to having it when you are healthy.

In fact, getting rid of your insurance now makes a lot of financial sense. Most serious diseases do not strike suddenly. Cancer takes years to grow. Heart attacks may be sudden, but you usually know when you're succeptible. Although anybody can get a heart attack, most of them happen after 65, at which point you are on Medicare anyway. Theoretically, you might even be able to apply for insurance while having a heart attack, and then dump it a few months later.

As a right-winger myself, I'll tell you that I find this particularly amusing because it is all done by raising the taxes on the poor. Now all those welfare freeloaders finally have to pay more taxes. If you're making minimum wage at $15000/year, you would have previously paid 10% after deductions, or something like $600 in federal income tax. With the mandate penalty (which you'll pay, because minimum wage jobs are not the ones providing health insurance), you'll pay more than twice that. Of course, this minimum wage worker might have been paying even less, due to earned income credit, food stamps, or whatever. The mandate penalty may thus increase the tax rate on the poor manyfold.

Done "correctly," HFC is bad for society because, like insider trading done "correctly," it specifically screws the "have nots" to benefit the "haves."

-
1. The only TRUE insiders are all in government and they CAN trade on their insider information. Gov't makes the rules, so when a congressman trades something with prior knowledge of the new law, or if somebody in FDA knows the outcome of a drug testing and then they trade on it, etc., that's real insider trading. All other trading done by individuals that run companies is not the same thing, they don't make the law.

2. For some reason you think that it is wrong that 'haves' are benefited while 'have nots' are not. Yes, a person who owns a HFT server is in a better position than a person that is not.

That is not a problem, it is no more a problem than a person who owns an excavator is a problem, because there are many people who dig with shovels.

Here is the real problem: gov't insider trading and gov't meddling with the economy, so that there is less actual economic activity and a huge proportion of 'economic' activity is moved to a trading floor.

Average car age in the US is about 11 years

I was a little surprised it is that old, most of the cars I see look newer than that. My car is old enough to be a senator, so I am dragging the average age up a bit.

About the grown man that got on the wrong plane and nearly had a nervous break-down when he landed in Mongolia instead of Taiwan. I can't find the original article told in his own sissy words instead the news article following is a kinder version of events. http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2006-04-06-strange-trip_x.htm

Jailed? Not that I'm aware of. Snooped on? Yes - let me find at least two links to stories that come to mind - - -

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/secret-service-investigates-ted-nugent-remarks-on-obama/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-03-23/louisiana-comment-obama/53741346/1

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2012/06/terry_jones_hangs_obama.php

http://gawker.com/5498597/obama-death-tweeter-being-investigated-by-secret-service

That should be enough, I would think. I was looking for a couple others - one was a crusty old redneck, the other some black guy from a southern city, each of who made similar comments to those linked to above.

Before you ask - I think the Secret Service is basically doing the job they are supposed to do, in each of these stories. But - there is a very thin line between doing their job properly, and becoming something like the KGB or the Stazi. Very thin line, indeed. Recent events have shown that the Secret Service is NOT incorruptible. It is improbable, but possible, that the SS could be turned into a tool of the administration to round up people like Ted Nugent, and to "silence" them, in whatever manner. Ted would have to be handled very carefully. Some redneck from Backwoods, Nowhere could just be snuffed, and his family told that he "resisted arrest".

"Snooped on" is common, these days. No less common than it was during the McCarthy days. Less public than in the McCarthy days, but just as common.

But then children won't learn to grow up with an irrational fear of guns.

Irrational?

Yes, "irrational".

Do you need a dictionary definition, or is English your second language? An example of rational fears for children would be unsupervised swimming pools and automobiles. Both kill FAR more children than guns.

Here's a recent news story about a 14-yo kid using a firearm to protect himself and his siblings from an armed home intruder.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-23/phoenix-teen-shoots-intruder/55782484/1

If this kid or his parents had your neurotic fears, it's quite likely he and his siblings, and possibly his parents as well when they came home, would be dead/abducted/assaulted/raped now.

This is not an isolated incident. Firearms in the hands of private citizens save innocent lives every day.

So, yes. A fear of guns in general is irrational. It's only a tool. It's the person wielding the tool, not the tool itself, that determines whether the tool will help or harm, that will take life or save life.

Please don't make everyone else suffer for your neurotic, paranoid, irrational fears.

Strat

Depends on who you mean by "we". Much of the oil imported by the US is refined and exported as gasoline and diesel fuel; China imports a lot of it.

From this article:

Benson said a vacancy for Giffords' 8th District congressional seat could be declared only by the U.S. House of Representatives and "not the state of Arizona."

Here is another article not so supportive of the idea. It states as follows;

However, no such precedent exists for a sitting Member of either House who has taken the oath of office, and a vacancy with respect to such a sitting Member would generally exist only by virtue of resignation, death, acceptance of an incompatible office, or expulsion.

Note that it does not say it can not be done but that it has not been done. In emergency conditions it may have to be done.

What mechanism prevents the majority party from simply declaring all opposing seats vacant?

1. A vote would have to be held for every removal. Unless the majority party had 2/3 majority they could not stop debate and the minority party could filibuster till the next election.
2. Any party who tried this would get zero seats in the next election. No party is going to do this to gain two years control because they would never be in power again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/opinion/hack-the-vote.html?_r=1

Inviting Bush supporters to a fund-raiser, the host wrote, ''I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.''

Also, instead of just saying that it is unsourced, you should attempt to find the source - in this case, I got a match on CNN, Wired, USA Today, LA Times and so on.

It also was sourced to begin with. First follow the "Voting Fiasco, Part 279.236" reference in the same paragraph, scroll to the "deliver the vote" link and click on it to arrive at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

I don't know what you find reputable, but here are a couple. The USA Today story cites the New York Times as the original source.

As much as I recall, the quote itself was never disputed, just denial of any sinister intent. The fact that the guy gave $100k to the Bush campaign and sent out fund raising letters for them would seem in line with that.

Well..if the US government (stuxnet for example) can do it (with no declaration of war), then it mustn't be illegal right? /ironyoff

If Iran can do it without a declaration of war, then it mustn't be illegal, right? (After all, what is a string of assassinations and a little planning for genocide among friends? No doubt the Iranians are envious because they didn't think of it first.)

At least they have a clear vision for the future, one that seems remarkably free of Jews in the Middle East.

How do you reconcile your statement with the Q&A from the article?

Q: I'm single and I just want a smartphone, that's it. The cheapest Shared Everything plan looks pretty expensive at $90 per month, and that's with just 1 gigabyte of data. Is there no alternative?

A: There's one cheaper plan, intended for first-time smartphone buyers. It gives you unlimited calling and texting, and just 300 megabytes of data per month. If you're frugal with data usage, that will get you by. It costs $80 per month.

If USA Today is making that up, as you claim elsewhere, they have one hell of a lawsuit coming from Verizon. They would have yanked the quoted text the second someone told them how badly they'd gotten it wrong. Why is it still up there?

The new "share everything" plans are designed to make it easier (and a bit cheaper) for families with a bunch of smartphones, a tablet or two, and text-messaging addicted teenagers. Not for single-device customers looking for a bargain.

Indeed; that is addressed in a Q&A page linked from TFA:

Q: I'm single and I just want a smartphone, that's it. The cheapest Shared Everything plan looks pretty expensive at $90 per month, and that's with just 1 gigabyte of data. Is there no alternative?

A: There's one cheaper plan, intended for first-time smartphone buyers. It gives you unlimited calling and texting, and just 300 megabytes of data per month. If you're frugal with data usage, that will get you by. It costs $80 per month.

That Q&A is USA today-conjured bullshit, plain and simple.

Somebody take a shit in your niswa or somethin' bro? Being just a bit defensive, aren't we?

None of the actual Verizon literature has suggested there will be ONLY a family share plan for all users.

*looks at own words quoted above*

Never said there was, dink. Calm down before you give yourself a coronary.

The new "share everything" plans are designed to make it easier (and a bit cheaper) for families with a bunch of smartphones, a tablet or two, and text-messaging addicted teenagers. Not for single-device customers looking for a bargain.

Indeed; that is addressed in a Q&A page linked from TFA:

Q: I'm single and I just want a smartphone, that's it. The cheapest Shared Everything plan looks pretty expensive at $90 per month, and that's with just 1 gigabyte of data. Is there no alternative?

A: There's one cheaper plan, intended for first-time smartphone buyers. It gives you unlimited calling and texting, and just 300 megabytes of data per month. If you're frugal with data usage, that will get you by. It costs $80 per month.

That Q&A is USAtoday-conjured bullshit, plain and simple. None of the actual Verizon literature has suggested there will be ONLY a family share plan for all users.

The new "share everything" plans are designed to make it easier (and a bit cheaper) for families with a bunch of smartphones, a tablet or two, and text-messaging addicted teenagers. Not for single-device customers looking for a bargain.

Indeed; that is addressed in a Q&A page linked from TFA:

Q: I'm single and I just want a smartphone, that's it. The cheapest Shared Everything plan looks pretty expensive at $90 per month, and that's with just 1 gigabyte of data. Is there no alternative?
A: There's one cheaper plan, intended for first-time smartphone buyers. It gives you unlimited calling and texting, and just 300 megabytes of data per month. If you're frugal with data usage, that will get you by. It costs $80 per month.

Not sure why you think this, other than ignorance or severe hatred. iOS can do these today. Any Windows tablet OS can't, today.

http://www.apple.com/ipad/from-the-app-store/apps-by-apple/iphoto.html
http://blogs.adobe.com/captivate/2012/01/creating-ipad-apps-using-rapid-elearning-authoring-tools.html
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/02/prweb5060934.htm

But iPads just consume media!

Wrong. SOOOOO wrong.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/story/2012-05-28/art-painting-apps/55205572/1
http://www.designer-daily.com/10-great-ipad-applications-for-creative-people-6234

Excuse me? I'm Argentinean and I have to tell you that your comment is very much out of context.
1) Sovereign over the Malvinas or Falkland islands is disputed since 19 century. Most Argentineans disagree with the military attempt to recover the islands in 1982 but support the claim over the islands.
2) YPF was the national Argentine oil company until corrupt politicians sold it to Repsol. Then Repsol only used YPF only to give dividends and did no investment. Same politicians expropriated YPF from Repsol, legally. It was one one many privatizations in the '90 made only to make politicians rich with bribes.
3) I heard of many tourists robbed, mainly because most turist doesn't seem to be used to take care of their bags at all times so they are an easy target than locals.

I'm amazed that nobody mentioned Bush daughter purse theft in Buenos Aires while he was still president.

Yes, and it was deemed to be illegal
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-16/nypd-unlawful-stops-lawsuit/55027100/1

The fact of the matter is that those who choose unhealthy lifestyles generally end up having a lower total lifetime medical costs because they do not live as long.

Yes, mod parent up, please! Everyone keeps asserting that obese people and smokers cost the health care system more, but that's only true on an annual basis. When you consider the lifetime costs, smokers and obese people cost the system a lot less... because they die earlier: Study: Fat people cheaper to treat.

Soda here and there is fine, chugging 8 MountainDews a day is not healthy.

Soda has no nutritional benefits. Having it "here and there" is probably not going to be as bad for most people, but for most people it never a particularly good thing.

On the other hand, there are some people who can drink 8 Mountain Dews per day and be fine. There is at least one documented person who has only eaten Big Macs for his entire adult life, and he actually seems to be incredibly healthy. The oldest woman who ever lived was a smoker for close to a hundred years of her life.

All sorts of people engage in all sorts of behaviors that might be risky for some or most people. If they aren't hurting you, why do you care?

To have a requirement to "NOT ACTIVELY KILL YOURSELF" is quite different than "this is what you have to eat".

Exactly what is the government's business in regulating whether you decide to kill yourself? It's your life. Shouldn't you be free to end it however you want?

For some people, the only thing that makes their life worth living is being a deep-sea fisherman. I've definitely met some who love their jobs, and they can't imagine doing anything else, even if it's hard for them to make a living. But their profession has one of the highest mortality rates of any profession. You want to tell them they can't do their job that they enjoy because they might end up dying?

How many great artists died of drug overdoses, diseases contracted from sexual behaviors, etc.? Would they have given the same creative work to posterity had they not been free to live their lives in these ways?

I'm not trying to ennoble the drinking of huge amounts of Mountain Dew. But I'm not sure why that person should have a "requirement" not to do so. (And before you start off on the healthcare cost argument, look at my previous post on this thread and the study here http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-02-05-obese-cost_N.htm)

If you choose to be fat, if you choose to smoke, if you choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle, you should be the one to pay for your healthcare expenses.

I keep hearing this crap and seeing it modded up as "+5 Informative."

Here's the problem with these arguments: Study: Fat people cheaper to treat.

This is a problem with the majority of health care expense studies that call for "nanny state" approaches to just about anything. Such studies usually compare annual costs to treat people who have various conditions or behaviors. Rarely do they consider total expenses for the entire lifespans of patients.

Think about it this way: an obese or a smoker or whatever may get sick a little more and thus cost a little more on average for the early part of his/her life. But a lot of these people then have heart attacks or strokes or whatever and die at age 45 or 55 or whatever. Meanwhile, other healthy people continue living to age 85 or 90, and they need health care (including various illnesses, operations, whatever) for an extra 30 or 40 years more. In the end, even many "healthy lifestyle" people will die of cancer or some other costly illness, so they end up costing the system a lot of money in the last couple years of care, just like the obese smoker who ends up with lung cancer 30 years earlier.

But those extra 30 years of healthcare, even for healthy people, will often end up costing more than the obese person who was "nice enough" to die and remove himself from the insurance pool early.

The cost-benefit analysis is a bit controversial, and there are some conflicting studies, but basically when you consider the total cost of healthcare over an entire lifespan, that obese smoker probably costs everyone a little less -- or at least about the same amount.

You can apply this logic to just about any "nanny state" law. Seat belt laws supposedly save us money because people wearing seatbelts end up with fewer major injuries, thereby costing the healthcare system less. But those studies never take into account the fact that people who don't wear seat belts tend to have a much greater fatality rate, and every 18-year-old dumbass who gets himself killed without a seatbelt is someone the healthcare system won't have to treat for another 60 or 70 years.

In the end, most of these things tend to balance out... because people who do stupid things just don't live as long and therefore generally shave decades off of their healthcare costs.

You want to be angry about someone -- be angry with the 100+ year old healthy people who have had minor operations and other problems over the years. They're the ones who collectively are costing you huge amounts of money over their lifespans. Maybe you're in favor of cutting off health insurance for anyone who lives past the average lifespan??