A self-selected survey via response to Slashdot is not a stereotype. It is a fact. The sample may be biased due to the selection factor (people offerring their own opinions rather than being targeted to give an opinion), but categorizing the majority of responders as disliking Walmart is not a stereotype. It's a simply born out by the evidence.
It also can't be a gross over-generalization to state that the majority of responders dislike Walmart.
It seems to be that you, yourself, are taking the response data as presented in the reader comments, creating the generalization in your own head (the majority of "Slashdot participants" don't shop there) and then railing about how this is a false generalization.
While I tend to argue with myself too, it is generally a good idea to know that one is doing so.
What do they mean, Apple being the "new" evil empire? Since when wasn't Apple either evil OR an empire (meaning monopoly)? Just because they were an irrelevant, marginalized monopoly doesn't mean they weren't one, the same way it's possible for more than one empire to exist. Well, I'm irrelevant and marganalized so I must be an Empire.
Oh, and by the way, are you religious? Are you aware that this statement applies to God? Just thought I'd mention that. If you believe in a God with any shred of compassion, then you must reject the "absolute power" statement.
Just philosophical rambling, but we are assuming that an individual who gains "absoulte power" does not have "absolute knowledge" - that is, they can and will do anything, but don't have the wisdom to forsee all the consequences and in fact may think there aren't any.
Without the wisdom to know which paths ultimately lead to "corruption" and which do not sooner or later a small step will be taken, and then another. It truly is a silppery slope due to due to the momentum built. However, at any point is possible to just stop but most people don't realize this because one's thoughts are caught up in the momentum as well.
Why, and how? FLAC is a lossless codec (see the "L"). Lossless means that you can uncompress this file into the very wav file that is stored on a normal CD. Assuming you have a processor or chipset capable of performing this transform in realtime it cannot sound any worse than the equivalent CD since they contain the exact same information.
Isn't that the actual point of audiophiles ripping to lossless codecs? That you can get the exact original file back???
However, if one lives in one of the countries specified it does not matter if one believed 'in something else' and then had that confirmed with a gizmo like this or used to believe and then becomes an apostate.
Either way will likely get you killed. Even if you believe something else you can't be considered ignorant of the True Religion, since you grew up in a culture that practices it... at some point you must have rejected the teachings or else you would believe them, even above your current heathenish belief in the FSM.
So you are saying that currently people are confused as to why they can burn some of their tracks and not others.
If Apple allowed Artists to sell non DRM'd music, this would change these user's experieces... how exactly? Oh, other than by allowing the to burn more of their music to mix CDs.
I bet given a simple visual cue in iTunes that most people would soon figure out that the songs with the frowny face don't burn to mp3 that easily so they should probably buy more of those songs with the smiley faces instead.
Also, it is difficult to say that space is "full" of junk. The LEO area has such a large volume that even hundres of millions of junk particles at a uniform distribution still means they are all many kilometers apart. So what is "full"? An operative definition of "full" can be found in utilizing the probability that when orbiting your satellite, or during it's operative lifetime one of those pieces of space junk causes it to become inoperative.
Now for different organizations "full" is going be defined with different probabilities. If you have as much money as the DOD, for example, "full" might be somewhere north of 50%, but I can't see many for profit companies putting up with a 50% satellite failure rate. For them, "full" probably is south of 10%.
No offense, but millions of people probably won't suffer if a burglar plans an escape route from your house. Successful takedown of a seat of government on the other hand... I hope you realise that this is just fear-mongering. No notion or group or people is seriously thinking about a takedown of the seat of India. Or even the US. Gasp! maybe not everyone is out to get you.
Not only that, but any burglar savvy enough to consult Google Maps is probably savvy enough to escape from something as simple as a basic residence without needing Google Maps. This is partly because information about the floorplan of your house is already freely available through a variety of information sources--all of which have already been purged of information about sensitive locations (assuming such sensitive information even made it into those repositories in the first place). If you think that all of these sensitive locations have been purged from every available location you are deluded. First of all, most of the things that are now being considered more sensitive were a matter of public record. Most of the structures are fixed structures and not subject to much change.
Not only that, any terrorist savvy enough to consult Google Maps probably has current site pictures as well as current sat photos, has sent people on as much of a walk through is possible, and a scale model in a computer simulation.
What I see is a customer to company relationship between individuals and Lycos, and a company to customer relationship between Lycos and the advertisers. You are providing them the opportunity to with your attention and they are presumably supplying you with some sort of beneficial experience. They aggregate people's attention and sell this to advertisers.
It just so happens that the product being sold to advertisers is the spare attention of the individuals. I don't see the value in collapsing this into a single relationship unless one wishes to disempower the individual. Oh, wait, that's exactly in the corporations' best interests!
I think that part of the value to the advertisers is that the advertising itself reinforces this message. Pretty neat feedback loop you got there, a shame if something happened to it.:)
When the cost/benefit ratio to the individual seems out of proportion then the customer will send their attention somewhere else. Which is why these types of companies either try to hide the unwanted externalities from the customer, such as selling their email address, or restrictive AUP's or TOS's, mining usage data, or their policies are relatively benign (except of course to ppl wearing tinfoil). These services have no lockin. You can move to another relatively easily, and they seem to be popping up like daisies.
ExxonMobil is not doing anything wrong by offerring $10,000 for research. They will be doing something wrong if they find someone willing to fabricate information. I have no love for Exxon, and I am pretty sure they would do that if needed. That would be news worthy, but this story is not. It is just FUD from the global warming crowd. You might be right if Exxon was actually offering $10,000 in research grants that funded science research... but they're not. They are offerring $10,000 for people to write papers giving opinions on why it might not be our fault . They are paying for the Authority of Science rather that Scientific results. They are paying for ammunition to be used in political battles that affect their bottom line, not to fund any type of actual research.
I'll believe otherwise when one of these "scientists" comes up with a working simulation that supports their pet cause(s) of global warming where 'turning the dials' of our interactions (C02 contributions, etc.) creates negligible effects.
Even without fabricating information, it is easy enough to say that x, y or z "might" be causing global warming, or give your opinion that "we" aren't causing it. There's no science involved. It is not FUD to state that this appears to be just another attempt at the continuation of existing policies - repeat lies often enough and people will believe them, or at least delay action so you can continue showing increasing Quarter-on-Quarter earnings.
So yes, ExxonMobile is doing something wrong with this effort.
Umm, I am wondering if you bothered reading either the OP or the links you provided. First, when they had the ballot recount in FL oh so long ago now, there were multiple counties that utilized the optical scanned ballots.
This gives us excellent real world test cases as to how optical paper ballots work. It turns out they work pretty well. The electronic recounts in these counties came up with the exact results that were previously reported. The hand counts did as well. Perhaps something about the ballot design had something to do with it, such as having the bubbles to be filled next to the candidates name (what will those Human Factors people think of next!?!)
was there when they did this, and MAN... they were insistent that paper ballots go into the dustbin of history because of their error rates and their propensity to "confuse minority voters". Their words, not mine. I don't know how you get from "punch cards are unfit for use" to ALL types of paper ballots are unfit for use. All your links are about punch card machines - ALL of your links. These machines have a "demonstrated record of denying votes." (also from your links). So it was no wonder when the ACLU went to bat for CA citizens remove these systems. I mean, duh, they don't work but we shouldn't worry about it???
So, I also googled "confuse minority voters"... Yeah, their words, not yours. That must be why I only see 5 results, the most popular of which states:
"widespread systematic dirty tricks to confuse minority voters regarding the proper precinct to vote in"
I'm sure that you have some other links to back up your statement, so I would appreciate you posting them.
Since that time (2003 - 2004), we have now had an election with multiple touch screen systems in use across the country. Guess what - they don't perform as well as optical ballots, either. In recognition of that fact the Governor of FL decided that people's votes should actually count, if possible, and is requesting that the most proven tech be used.
I'm sure the ACLU will be up in arms about this, too. After all its more a preference for electrons than cellulose that drives their decision process. It's certainly not a matter of properly counting as many votes as possible. After all, what's a few hundred thousand votes here or there?
It is relatively easy to argue that no one needs Vista (period), and arguably correct. However, that doesn't quite stop the reality that soon enough when people buy new PCs they will mostly be getting (you guessed it) - Vista!
So, let's say one works in the computer business using Windows (I know, that's a stretch here on Slashdot), perhaps setting up systems, troubleshooting people's home installs, developing software...
Are you going to wait until someone calls you up about Vista problems before you install and play with it yourself? I guess some people might, but not anyone I would want to deal with.
It's not that anyone needs it, it's that a large percent of the population will have it anyways, which will grow to a majority as time marches on. It's kind of like the opposite of the chicken and egg problem - you have an egg(Vista), ergo you will have a chicken, an omlette, a pissed off driver... but the egg is there.
I think that the stats will show that most "mom & pops" will acquire Vista through a purchase of new PCs. So. How much do you think Dell pays for Vista?
Care to bet the over on your $189? I'll certainly agree to take the under. Hell, I'll even throw in equality to your side.:)
So, no, I don't think the profit margin on most sales to this type of customer will be impressive.
Actually, you don't have to be that cynical at all.
If you look around, the Foundation has been closely tied with deals in Mexico and India to stop the adoption of OSS solutions. It seems to act in some cases as an extra-legal arm of the Corporation. That is, the Foundation's $$ is used to *ahem* incentivize countries to locking out OSS.
You can argue about the other good it's doing but I see these cases as unarguably wrong. For a Charity Foundation this is more than a red flag - it's a sign of conflicting interests inside the Foundation. Some of those interests do not seem charitable, at all.
One question to ask is if the Foundation is doing more good than harm. But better questions are: Why the fuck is a charity doing stuff that harms the very people they purport to help, and Why does Microsoft tend to benefit from most of the harms the Foundation is causing?
Hmm. Yeah, one really has to be cynical to feel that Bill might have multiple motives.
I recall when Bill first announced this plan. Some people at that point were saying that one of the reasons he did so was to improve Microsoft's image. Another group most vehemently defended him and said that his acts as a private individual wouldn't polish the tarnish from the corporation.
Well, I guess we know now in a more concrete way which of those viewpoints is more likely to be true. After all, when you think of Bill Gates how can you not associate him with Microsoft?
It is possible to literally buy elections with advertising, it is certainly feasible to buy goodwill with charity. That appears to be the situation here; even if it was not his primary goal it would be idiotic to think that this upsurge of goodwill wasn't anticipated and encouraged from the Corporate standpoint.
The problem is people want others to be good, even companies. People extend trust when they shouldn't and are generally willing to forgive the abuse of that trust when individuals or companies make signals that they have or are changing.
In this case I would say that the majority of abuses are so subtly hidden from normal users that they probably don't even realize they are being abused. On top of that people have been conditioned to many of these and accept them as SOP. Sure, some may stumble upon the tip of the iceberg but not many have the patience, knowledge or desire to "go diving" to see the rest of it. It takes a long look at the continuing history of MS to see the scope, breadth and focused intensity of their corporate psychopathic conduct both towards other companies as well as individuals.
Ok, so you agree with the premise of the GP. Thanks.
Now, what are you planning on doing about it? Government regulation is one group of people saying - "This is what I think we should do about this issue." You forget that generally most of the government tries to do what most people want most of the time.
Do you object to the government stopping corporate tyrannies? I really don't see a point, unless you are trying to say that since we got ourselves into this mess we deserve what we get.
But that's hardly constructive. If "the consumers" ruined the market it's only because they were part of the feedback cycle created by the military industrial complex post wwII. Manufacturing capabilities had grown so much that consumption had to be promoted. Not that people had much problem with that given the austerities of the War.
Charging into the sublime 50's producers seemed to have gained access to the psych work done by allied and axis scientists during the propaganda wars and and the real start of the War on Consciousness advertising began to have much more bite beyond the crude pokings of a pre-freudian mindset, it began to more closely target increased probabilities of "conversion". Having no natural defenses against this kind of attack, large portions of the population fell sway, and still are, of this feedback cycle and meme complex.
However, this type of underhanded maneuver is certainly not limited to advertising. Political issues are quite tasty treats for this species of behaviour. Speech writers choose their diction quite carefully nowadays and certainly use the latest NLP and related exploits.
Hrm that could be what this is analogous to - exploits to human consciousness - 0 day ones, as i don't think we've quite caught up. Pretty weird.
It's nice that you are conditioning your child to grow up in the society he'll be living in: Ubiquitous monitoring, trust through surveillance (you have "two-way trust" - that's a good one), blind obedience to Authority.
In doing what you are doing, you are not only teaching him your beliefs and values but instilling a distrust in you, his parents, that runs much deeper that you think. You do not trust your son. Get over it. Saying you trust him is not the same as actually doing so. You do not trust him at all, in the slightest. Not one bit. No matter what you say your actions belie your words. In fact, the contradictions created in your own mind by this dichotomy are in themselves damaging to your children as well as yourself.
You say your son trusts you. I can go along with that, considering he's 9. It's much easier to bend your mind to such contradictions when you're young. However, I don't expect that this will last until he's 18. Unless you are able to stunt his growth, he should consciously see the glaring obviousness of your lies in a few years, 5 max i would say.
If he does, you will have created someone who is able to succeed in the modern world of Catch-22's. If he suppresses this knowledge, you will have created a damaged and defective human being (quite possibly schizophrenic). Either way it seems like they will be appropriately paranoid.
Hmm, I guess I take that back. I figure you have probably a good chance of producing someone who is able to cover their tracks pretty well therefore has the skillz to avoid the much more lax authoritarian regimes currently called governments (after all the big G can't afford the extensive monitoring you engage in).
So, how do you expect God to change your belief structures if you won't listen to his representatives on Earth? Do you expect some miraculous experience like Paul (nee Saul) had? I find the best way is to open myself to the possibility that I might be wrong. It's called faith, you know, the actual bleeding edge of it. Faith that your core belief structures will still be there as you question the axioms, roots and branches of it and discard or modify your beliefs. Faith that even if you determine that one or a cluster of beliefs are incorrect (i.e. you change your mind), you will still be in God's loving eyes and are still able to continue the Great Work here on earth.
It doesn't even have to be an active thing; just the sensitivity to know that real world experiences can, and should, send ripples through your belief structures, shaking out the bugs. I guess this, then, depends on the ability to see your beliefs as a gestalt of multiple different ideas.
I am wondering where this Paranoid Surveillance trip comes out of your Faith. You need to find that ideological plank of your belief structures and examine what's wrong with it, because something sure is. While I agree that one's actions should stem from one's beliefs (which is why I am bothering writing this), I think your path to right action has been diverted by extraneous belief structures.
That is, you have some irrational Fear that is haunting you. This, in turn, enables an environment where the seeds of paranoia have grown to blossom, since you have not rooted out this fear. A subset of your belief structures is actively engaged in finding a set of patterns in real world examples to assure your self that you are on the correct path. Judging by your actions, these structures are under control of your paranoid tendencies. They have hooked into your Religious structures at some level such that you believe your behaviour towards your son is both necessary and in his best interest at a fundamental level when in really it's mostly just Paranoia having it's way with you.
Parents should not have the right to raise their children 'no matter how much some may disagree with your parenting tactics.' Why not? Ok, I'll give it a shot - Because at some point, the rights of the child outweigh the rights of the parent.
First, one must dispense with the edge cases. Actually, these are the only cases one needs to look at to settle this. I can see off the bat situations where parents do not have the Right: If the parent is causing lasting physical harm or through inaction causing such; If the parent is molesting the child; If they are keeping the child from becoming educated (able to read, write, maths, logic, science, etc.).
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Since these cases exist, that means there must be some limits to parent's rights on raising their children, else one must agree that these are perfectly acceptable parenting practices.
So, no, parents don't have the right to do what they want to their children under the guise of 'raising them up right'. There are limits.
Compelling enough for you?
Of course, this isn't black and white. That's why there's debate on this touchy subject. I find it curious that there is a large vocal minority that stands for Absolute parenting rights, yet nowhere does one find any sort of minority that stands for Absolute state rights. Either one is a dangerous faith to have, IMO.
I think the larger fertile ground is to be found debating what types of interventions are necessary, to find a balance. It doesn't help the dialogue to loudly exclaim the supremacy of Parents Rights, because that is a specious argument.
The real debate isn't whether we as a society should intervene in certain situations, but in what situations, to what extent, and (the devil being in the details) through what set of mechanisms. It is particularly troublesome because people aren't machines. The same stimulus given to two different people in similar situations can produce dramatically different results. Not to mention that the unintended systemic consequences of our actions are unknowns.
However, none of these difficulties should prevent us from trying to make a better world for our children and ourselves. Not that I think this bill is a good way to ensure either of these things.
Yeah, but that's no different than how the gov't feels about the rest of us either. And come to think of it, that attitude appears to hold legual sway at the moment as well.
So basically you're saying that as long as you pay the V boatloads of cash and get the super secret number to call they are willing to help solve your problems.
I'm sorry, but you aren't actually even addressing the parent's point. You may not know this, but most customers don't have that special super secret number. You just happen to have a higher tier level of service than ordinary people.
In this case your anecdotal evidence proves, at most, that a very small set of customers (those with the $$) might be getting good customer service, not that Verizon customer service is good in general. I doubt many individuals fall into this category.
First of all, i believe you are talking out your ass. Sorry to be harsh, but I am not feeling generous today.
Here's a direct quote from Gonzales (as reported in TFA):
"The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended"
So, your claim that Gonzales meant that habeas corpus ehm "requires statutory implementation" and therefore is not a right is a red herring. Gonzales is clearly talking about the fundamental right behind habeas, which he clearly thinks is not all that, ah, fundamental. Habeas is the procedure whereby the fundamental right is expressed, and Gonzales said that citizens are not assured of that procedure even when not falling in the set of the exception cases (rebellion or invasion).
This is directly contradictory to your claims that Gonzales is "fundamentally" right. He's not, although if "is" is is if the shit hits the fan he can claim to be 'technically right'. His position is the greatest threat to liberty from a sitting Attorney General in recent memory.
Now, if you could back up your claims with some pointers to Constitutional opinion pieces Gonzales has written that support your view of his statements, I will have to re-evaluate things.
But as it stands, my interpretation (along with quite a few others) fits the pattern of erosion of ah, yes, the "procedures" that guarantee our fundamental rights (do I have that spin right?). This is just another instance of something he is fundamentally wrong on, all apologies to his Apologists.
I totally agree with staying connected to the grid. It jsut makes sense for redundancy, if nothing else. Besides, it really can cut down on the need for lead acid backup.
However, I think I must dispute the cost angle. FP said the cost of his system was $65,000 ($31, 000 with CA rebates). Even at $31,000... A 1 yr CD is 5.25%, so your savings must be over hrmm, $1600 a year or you are demonstrably worse off economically. So, your electricity has to cost $1600 less just to make up the cost of what else you could be doing with that cash. Then, to actually recoup the $30, 000 in 20 years(I'll give that a nice lifespan), you need to save an additional $1500 a year on electricity.
Then, it depends on how optimistic you are about future solar technologies. Could they come up with a back-yard stirling engine for $15,000? Probably, I can get a car for that... How are photovoltaics going at that time? By waiting five years, you could have entered the market with a much more efficient, much cheaper system... or, not, you know, if the glasses aren't so rosy (or full - pick your methaphorical poison). You can count on at least incremental improvements; prices down, efficiency and life up, form factors - more varied, new breakthroughs that are not in production...
I agree that by spending money now you are realizing an opportunity to save money, but for most people this point it probably won't work.
Who has a $3100/yr electricity bill? $258 a month? Not me... Until the system is able to pump enough back into the grid to make up the difference (about $170 a month). I must admit it would be nice to get a check from the power company every month, though. I'll be looking when this is a reality and then it will make economic sense.
And these numbers are on a 50% discounted system... Which leads me to another topic, in that the good people of CA are already paying for solar, whether they install it or not. Kudos! So, everyone is a state with governmental subsidies in solar technologies is already buying solar,.
First consider that the spammers have likely bought all of their shares before the spam. You cannot write a program to buy spammed stocks before the spam has occurred. Although if you can, I'd like to hire you...
So, any set of programs that buy after the spam goes out drive up the prices further, so the spammer gets more money than they would have if just the sheeple bought it.
In this scenario, you are not making your money off of the spammers, but off of the unfortunates that don't know when to get out. This is being a jackal to the spammer's lion - you become complicit in the fleecing of the gullible by picking over the bones.:|
It may be possible to make money, but don't try to fool yourself about where you are getting that cash from. If anything, such programs would tend to increase the revenues available from such spamming.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe if you set the PC on top of an Apple you're okay...
A self-selected survey via response to Slashdot is not a stereotype. It is a fact. The sample may be biased due to the selection factor (people offerring their own opinions rather than being targeted to give an opinion), but categorizing the majority of responders as disliking Walmart is not a stereotype. It's a simply born out by the evidence.
It also can't be a gross over-generalization to state that the majority of responders dislike Walmart.
It seems to be that you, yourself, are taking the response data as presented in the reader comments, creating the generalization in your own head (the majority of "Slashdot participants" don't shop there) and then railing about how this is a false generalization.
While I tend to argue with myself too, it is generally a good idea to know that one is doing so.
Cool.
Oh, and by the way, are you religious? Are you aware that this statement applies to God? Just thought I'd mention that. If you believe in a God with any shred of compassion, then you must reject the "absolute power" statement.
:)
Just philosophical rambling, but we are assuming that an individual who gains "absoulte power" does not have "absolute knowledge" - that is, they can and will do anything, but don't have the wisdom to forsee all the consequences and in fact may think there aren't any.
Without the wisdom to know which paths ultimately lead to "corruption" and which do not sooner or later a small step will be taken, and then another. It truly is a silppery slope due to due to the momentum built. However, at any point is possible to just stop but most people don't realize this because one's thoughts are caught up in the momentum as well.
Told you this was OT.
Why, and how? FLAC is a lossless codec (see the "L"). Lossless means that you can uncompress this file into the very wav file that is stored on a normal CD. Assuming you have a processor or chipset capable of performing this transform in realtime it cannot sound any worse than the equivalent CD since they contain the exact same information.
Isn't that the actual point of audiophiles ripping to lossless codecs? That you can get the exact original file back???
Good job mods.
However, if one lives in one of the countries specified it does not matter if one believed 'in something else' and then had that confirmed with a gizmo like this or used to believe and then becomes an apostate.
Either way will likely get you killed. Even if you believe something else you can't be considered ignorant of the True Religion, since you grew up in a culture that practices it... at some point you must have rejected the teachings or else you would believe them, even above your current heathenish belief in the FSM.
So you are saying that currently people are confused as to why they can burn some of their tracks and not others.
If Apple allowed Artists to sell non DRM'd music, this would change these user's experieces... how exactly? Oh, other than by allowing the to burn more of their music to mix CDs.
I bet given a simple visual cue in iTunes that most people would soon figure out that the songs with the frowny face don't burn to mp3 that easily so they should probably buy more of those songs with the smiley faces instead.
Now for different organizations "full" is going be defined with different probabilities. If you have as much money as the DOD, for example, "full" might be somewhere north of 50%, but I can't see many for profit companies putting up with a 50% satellite failure rate. For them, "full" probably is south of 10%.
Not only that, any terrorist savvy enough to consult Google Maps probably has current site pictures as well as current sat photos, has sent people on as much of a walk through is possible, and a scale model in a computer simulation.
I think this is slightly incorrect...
:)
What I see is a customer to company relationship between individuals and Lycos, and a company to customer relationship between Lycos and the advertisers. You are providing them the opportunity to with your attention and they are presumably supplying you with some sort of beneficial experience. They aggregate people's attention and sell this to advertisers.
It just so happens that the product being sold to advertisers is the spare attention of the individuals. I don't see the value in collapsing this into a single relationship unless one wishes to disempower the individual. Oh, wait, that's exactly in the corporations' best interests!
I think that part of the value to the advertisers is that the advertising itself reinforces this message. Pretty neat feedback loop you got there, a shame if something happened to it.
When the cost/benefit ratio to the individual seems out of proportion then the customer will send their attention somewhere else. Which is why these types of companies either try to hide the unwanted externalities from the customer, such as selling their email address, or restrictive AUP's or TOS's, mining usage data, or their policies are relatively benign (except of course to ppl wearing tinfoil). These services have no lockin. You can move to another relatively easily, and they seem to be popping up like daisies.
YMMV, of course.
I'll believe otherwise when one of these "scientists" comes up with a working simulation that supports their pet cause(s) of global warming where 'turning the dials' of our interactions (C02 contributions, etc.) creates negligible effects.
Even without fabricating information, it is easy enough to say that x, y or z "might" be causing global warming, or give your opinion that "we" aren't causing it. There's no science involved. It is not FUD to state that this appears to be just another attempt at the continuation of existing policies - repeat lies often enough and people will believe them, or at least delay action so you can continue showing increasing Quarter-on-Quarter earnings.
So yes, ExxonMobile is doing something wrong with this effort.
This gives us excellent real world test cases as to how optical paper ballots work. It turns out they work pretty well. The electronic recounts in these counties came up with the exact results that were previously reported. The hand counts did as well. Perhaps something about the ballot design had something to do with it, such as having the bubbles to be filled next to the candidates name (what will those Human Factors people think of next!?!) was there when they did this, and MAN... they were insistent that paper ballots go into the dustbin of history because of their error rates and their propensity to "confuse minority voters". Their words, not mine. I don't know how you get from "punch cards are unfit for use" to ALL types of paper ballots are unfit for use. All your links are about punch card machines - ALL of your links. These machines have a "demonstrated record of denying votes." (also from your links). So it was no wonder when the ACLU went to bat for CA citizens remove these systems. I mean, duh, they don't work but we shouldn't worry about it???
So, I also googled "confuse minority voters"... Yeah, their words, not yours. That must be why I only see 5 results, the most popular of which states:
"widespread systematic dirty tricks to confuse minority voters regarding the proper precinct to vote in"
I'm sure that you have some other links to back up your statement, so I would appreciate you posting them.
Since that time (2003 - 2004), we have now had an election with multiple touch screen systems in use across the country. Guess what - they don't perform as well as optical ballots, either. In recognition of that fact the Governor of FL decided that people's votes should actually count, if possible, and is requesting that the most proven tech be used.
I'm sure the ACLU will be up in arms about this, too. After all its more a preference for electrons than cellulose that drives their decision process. It's certainly not a matter of properly counting as many votes as possible. After all, what's a few hundred thousand votes here or there?
It is relatively easy to argue that no one needs Vista (period), and arguably correct. However, that doesn't quite stop the reality that soon enough when people buy new PCs they will mostly be getting (you guessed it) - Vista!
So, let's say one works in the computer business using Windows (I know, that's a stretch here on Slashdot), perhaps setting up systems, troubleshooting people's home installs, developing software...
Are you going to wait until someone calls you up about Vista problems before you install and play with it yourself? I guess some people might, but not anyone I would want to deal with.
It's not that anyone needs it, it's that a large percent of the population will have it anyways, which will grow to a majority as time marches on. It's kind of like the opposite of the chicken and egg problem - you have an egg(Vista), ergo you will have a chicken, an omlette, a pissed off driver... but the egg is there.
I think that the stats will show that most "mom & pops" will acquire Vista through a purchase of new PCs. So. How much do you think Dell pays for Vista?
:)
Care to bet the over on your $189? I'll certainly agree to take the under. Hell, I'll even throw in equality to your side.
So, no, I don't think the profit margin on most sales to this type of customer will be impressive.
Actually, you don't have to be that cynical at all.
If you look around, the Foundation has been closely tied with deals in Mexico and India to stop the adoption of OSS solutions. It seems to act in some cases as an extra-legal arm of the Corporation. That is, the Foundation's $$ is used to *ahem* incentivize countries to locking out OSS.
You can argue about the other good it's doing but I see these cases as unarguably wrong. For a Charity Foundation this is more than a red flag - it's a sign of conflicting interests inside the Foundation. Some of those interests do not seem charitable, at all.
One question to ask is if the Foundation is doing more good than harm. But better questions are: Why the fuck is a charity doing stuff that harms the very people they purport to help, and Why does Microsoft tend to benefit from most of the harms the Foundation is causing?
Hmm. Yeah, one really has to be cynical to feel that Bill might have multiple motives.
I recall when Bill first announced this plan. Some people at that point were saying that one of the reasons he did so was to improve Microsoft's image. Another group most vehemently defended him and said that his acts as a private individual wouldn't polish the tarnish from the corporation.
Well, I guess we know now in a more concrete way which of those viewpoints is more likely to be true. After all, when you think of Bill Gates how can you not associate him with Microsoft?
It is possible to literally buy elections with advertising, it is certainly feasible to buy goodwill with charity. That appears to be the situation here; even if it was not his primary goal it would be idiotic to think that this upsurge of goodwill wasn't anticipated and encouraged from the Corporate standpoint.
The problem is people want others to be good, even companies. People extend trust when they shouldn't and are generally willing to forgive the abuse of that trust when individuals or companies make signals that they have or are changing.
In this case I would say that the majority of abuses are so subtly hidden from normal users that they probably don't even realize they are being abused. On top of that people have been conditioned to many of these and accept them as SOP. Sure, some may stumble upon the tip of the iceberg but not many have the patience, knowledge or desire to "go diving" to see the rest of it. It takes a long look at the continuing history of MS to see the scope, breadth and focused intensity of their corporate psychopathic conduct both towards other companies as well as individuals.
Ok, so you agree with the premise of the GP. Thanks.
:)
Now, what are you planning on doing about it? Government regulation is one group of people saying - "This is what I think we should do about this issue." You forget that generally most of the government tries to do what most people want most of the time.
Do you object to the government stopping corporate tyrannies? I really don't see a point, unless you are trying to say that since we got ourselves into this mess we deserve what we get.
But that's hardly constructive. If "the consumers" ruined the market it's only because they were part of the feedback cycle created by the military industrial complex post wwII. Manufacturing capabilities had grown so much that consumption had to be promoted. Not that people had much problem with that given the austerities of the War.
Charging into the sublime 50's producers seemed to have gained access to the psych work done by allied and axis scientists during the propaganda wars and and the real start of the War on Consciousness advertising began to have much more bite beyond the crude pokings of a pre-freudian mindset, it began to more closely target increased probabilities of "conversion". Having no natural defenses against this kind of attack, large portions of the population fell sway, and still are, of this feedback cycle and meme complex.
However, this type of underhanded maneuver is certainly not limited to advertising. Political issues are quite tasty treats for this species of behaviour. Speech writers choose their diction quite carefully nowadays and certainly use the latest NLP and related exploits.
Hrm that could be what this is analogous to - exploits to human consciousness - 0 day ones, as i don't think we've quite caught up. Pretty weird.
*at least some of the above is true*
at least i had fun writing it.
It's nice that you are conditioning your child to grow up in the society he'll be living in: Ubiquitous monitoring, trust through surveillance (you have "two-way trust" - that's a good one), blind obedience to Authority.
In doing what you are doing, you are not only teaching him your beliefs and values but instilling a distrust in you, his parents, that runs much deeper that you think. You do not trust your son. Get over it. Saying you trust him is not the same as actually doing so. You do not trust him at all, in the slightest. Not one bit. No matter what you say your actions belie your words. In fact, the contradictions created in your own mind by this dichotomy are in themselves damaging to your children as well as yourself.
You say your son trusts you. I can go along with that, considering he's 9. It's much easier to bend your mind to such contradictions when you're young. However, I don't expect that this will last until he's 18. Unless you are able to stunt his growth, he should consciously see the glaring obviousness of your lies in a few years, 5 max i would say.
If he does, you will have created someone who is able to succeed in the modern world of Catch-22's. If he suppresses this knowledge, you will have created a damaged and defective human being (quite possibly schizophrenic). Either way it seems like they will be appropriately paranoid.
Hmm, I guess I take that back. I figure you have probably a good chance of producing someone who is able to cover their tracks pretty well therefore has the skillz to avoid the much more lax authoritarian regimes currently called governments (after all the big G can't afford the extensive monitoring you engage in).
So, how do you expect God to change your belief structures if you won't listen to his representatives on Earth? Do you expect some miraculous experience like Paul (nee Saul) had? I find the best way is to open myself to the possibility that I might be wrong. It's called faith, you know, the actual bleeding edge of it. Faith that your core belief structures will still be there as you question the axioms, roots and branches of it and discard or modify your beliefs. Faith that even if you determine that one or a cluster of beliefs are incorrect (i.e. you change your mind), you will still be in God's loving eyes and are still able to continue the Great Work here on earth.
It doesn't even have to be an active thing; just the sensitivity to know that real world experiences can, and should, send ripples through your belief structures, shaking out the bugs. I guess this, then, depends on the ability to see your beliefs as a gestalt of multiple different ideas.
I am wondering where this Paranoid Surveillance trip comes out of your Faith. You need to find that ideological plank of your belief structures and examine what's wrong with it, because something sure is. While I agree that one's actions should stem from one's beliefs (which is why I am bothering writing this), I think your path to right action has been diverted by extraneous belief structures.
That is, you have some irrational Fear that is haunting you. This, in turn, enables an environment where the seeds of paranoia have grown to blossom, since you have not rooted out this fear. A subset of your belief structures is actively engaged in finding a set of patterns in real world examples to assure your self that you are on the correct path. Judging by your actions, these structures are under control of your paranoid tendencies. They have hooked into your Religious structures at some level such that you believe your behaviour towards your son is both necessary and in his best interest at a fundamental level when in really it's mostly just Paranoia having it's way with you.
First, one must dispense with the edge cases. Actually, these are the only cases one needs to look at to settle this. I can see off the bat situations where parents do not have the Right: If the parent is causing lasting physical harm or through inaction causing such; If the parent is molesting the child; If they are keeping the child from becoming educated (able to read, write, maths, logic, science, etc.).
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Since these cases exist, that means there must be some limits to parent's rights on raising their children, else one must agree that these are perfectly acceptable parenting practices.
So, no, parents don't have the right to do what they want to their children under the guise of 'raising them up right'. There are limits.
Compelling enough for you?
Of course, this isn't black and white. That's why there's debate on this touchy subject. I find it curious that there is a large vocal minority that stands for Absolute parenting rights, yet nowhere does one find any sort of minority that stands for Absolute state rights. Either one is a dangerous faith to have, IMO.
I think the larger fertile ground is to be found debating what types of interventions are necessary, to find a balance. It doesn't help the dialogue to loudly exclaim the supremacy of Parents Rights, because that is a specious argument.
The real debate isn't whether we as a society should intervene in certain situations, but in what situations, to what extent, and (the devil being in the details) through what set of mechanisms. It is particularly troublesome because people aren't machines. The same stimulus given to two different people in similar situations can produce dramatically different results. Not to mention that the unintended systemic consequences of our actions are unknowns.
However, none of these difficulties should prevent us from trying to make a better world for our children and ourselves. Not that I think this bill is a good way to ensure either of these things.
Yeah, but that's no different than how the gov't feels about the rest of us either. And come to think of it, that attitude appears to hold legual sway at the moment as well.
So basically you're saying that as long as you pay the V boatloads of cash and get the super secret number to call they are willing to help solve your problems.
I'm sorry, but you aren't actually even addressing the parent's point. You may not know this, but most customers don't have that special super secret number. You just happen to have a higher tier level of service than ordinary people.
In this case your anecdotal evidence proves, at most, that a very small set of customers (those with the $$) might be getting good customer service, not that Verizon customer service is good in general. I doubt many individuals fall into this category.
First of all, i believe you are talking out your ass. Sorry to be harsh, but I am not feeling generous today.
Here's a direct quote from Gonzales (as reported in TFA):
"The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended"
So, your claim that Gonzales meant that habeas corpus ehm "requires statutory implementation" and therefore is not a right is a red herring. Gonzales is clearly talking about the fundamental right behind habeas, which he clearly thinks is not all that, ah, fundamental. Habeas is the procedure whereby the fundamental right is expressed, and Gonzales said that citizens are not assured of that procedure even when not falling in the set of the exception cases (rebellion or invasion).
This is directly contradictory to your claims that Gonzales is "fundamentally" right. He's not, although if "is" is is if the shit hits the fan he can claim to be 'technically right'. His position is the greatest threat to liberty from a sitting Attorney General in recent memory.
Now, if you could back up your claims with some pointers to Constitutional opinion pieces Gonzales has written that support your view of his statements, I will have to re-evaluate things.
But as it stands, my interpretation (along with quite a few others) fits the pattern of erosion of ah, yes, the "procedures" that guarantee our fundamental rights (do I have that spin right?). This is just another instance of something he is fundamentally wrong on, all apologies to his Apologists.
/b> damn it
I totally agree with staying connected to the grid. It jsut makes sense for redundancy, if nothing else. Besides, it really can cut down on the need for lead acid backup.
However, I think I must dispute the cost angle. FP said the cost of his system was $65,000 ($31, 000 with CA rebates). Even at $31,000... A 1 yr CD is 5.25%, so your savings must be over hrmm, $1600 a year or you are demonstrably worse off economically. So, your electricity has to cost $1600 less just to make up the cost of what else you could be doing with that cash. Then, to actually recoup the $30, 000 in 20 years(I'll give that a nice lifespan), you need to save an additional $1500 a year on electricity.
Then, it depends on how optimistic you are about future solar technologies. Could they come up with a back-yard stirling engine for $15,000? Probably, I can get a car for that... How are photovoltaics going at that time? By waiting five years, you could have entered the market with a much more efficient, much cheaper system... or, not, you know, if the glasses aren't so rosy (or full - pick your methaphorical poison). You can count on at least incremental improvements; prices down, efficiency and life up, form factors - more varied, new breakthroughs that are not in production...
I agree that by spending money now you are realizing an opportunity to save money, but for most people this point it probably won't work.
Who has a $3100/yr electricity bill? $258 a month? Not me... Until the system is able to pump enough back into the grid to make up the difference (about $170 a month). I must admit it would be nice to get a check from the power company every month, though. I'll be looking when this is a reality and then it will make economic sense.
And these numbers are on a 50% discounted system... Which leads me to another topic, in that the good people of CA are already paying for solar, whether they install it or not. Kudos! So, everyone is a state with governmental subsidies in solar technologies is already buying solar,.
Not so.
:|
First consider that the spammers have likely bought all of their shares before the spam. You cannot write a program to buy spammed stocks before the spam has occurred. Although if you can, I'd like to hire you...
So, any set of programs that buy after the spam goes out drive up the prices further, so the spammer gets more money than they would have if just the sheeple bought it.
In this scenario, you are not making your money off of the spammers, but off of the unfortunates that don't know when to get out. This is being a jackal to the spammer's lion - you become complicit in the fleecing of the gullible by picking over the bones.
It may be possible to make money, but don't try to fool yourself about where you are getting that cash from. If anything, such programs would tend to increase the revenues available from such spamming.